'Come Argue In Person': SC To Woman Insisting On Virtual Hearing, Offers To Pay Expenses
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the woman, who was representing herself
The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged a woman litigant to appear in person to argue her case, after she insisted on continuing via video conferencing (VC). The Court even offered her travel expenses and free legal aid, but she declined, citing personal and work commitments.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the woman, who was representing herself.
When the Court asked why she could not attend physically despite being offered assistance by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), she said she had to care for someone in her family, lived far away, and was also working, Live Law reported.
She added that technical issues from previous hearings had been resolved. However, Justice Datta observed that she kept looking at someone off-screen when the bench asked her questions. She first said they were co-petitioners but later claimed she was the only petitioner, leading the bench to caution her against making contradictory statements.
'Livelihood is more important or you want to argue your case? You can't spare even one day to argue the case you are pursuing?" Justice Datta asked. The woman replied that her livelihood came first.
The Court then offered to appoint a Supreme Court lawyer of her choice free of cost and cover her travel expenses to Delhi, but the woman stood firm on her VC request.
'What is the problem with my arguing? I want to understand that. I want to understand what's the problem in my VC appearance," she asked. Justice Datta replied, 'We are at a loss to understand what prevents you from coming here!."
'If you want your submissions to be heard, it has to be in-person. We are requesting you to come to Delhi. All the expenses will be borne by NALSA," he added.
The case is linked to the Lalita Kumari judgment. The Court pointed out that previous rulings held that contempt petitions cannot be filed by someone not party to that case. Justice Kant said the woman could be allowed to argue that those rulings need reconsideration.
Before the hearing ended, the Court asked her to make up her mind. She replied, 'I have made up my mind."
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
38 minutes ago
- NDTV
Uploading Burnt Cash Video Doesnt Mean Process Is Vitiated: Top Court To Justice Verma
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed with Justice Yashwant Varma's submission that the video of burnt wads of currency notes found at his residence should not have been uploaded on the apex court website. However, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said just because tapes have been published on the website, it does not mean the process is vitiated and Justice Varma can go "scot-free". The top court said the impeachment proceedings will be held independently in the Parliament, without reference to the in-house report. On the question of delay in approaching the top court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for Justice Varma, said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged. "Tape was released. It was already released, my reputation already damaged. What would I come to court for?" Sibal said. Justice Datta remarked, "We are with you on this for the time being. It should not have been done." However, Justice Datta said, "It does not mean that there has been some lapse in the procedure, which affects the powers of the Parliament to take action against you, because Parliament, I need not to say with any emphasis, it has its own powers. "Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what judiciary says or what CJI recommends. They are supposed to act independently and if, at all, Parliament admits the motion and if an inquiry committee is set up, you know who can be the members of the committee. "Do you think those members, people of high calibre, would be influenced by preliminary report where you will have whole opportunity to demolish what are the findings," he said. The top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. In an unprecedented move, the top court on Mach 22 uploaded on its website an in-house inquiry report, including photos and videos, into the discovery of a huge stash of cash at the residence of Justice Varma who was then Delhi High Court judge. The report contains photos and videos of the cash discovered at a storeroom at Justice Varma's house during a firefighting operation on the night of Holi, March 14.
NDTV
38 minutes ago
- NDTV
Top Court Declines To Defer Framing Of Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav In Land-For-Job Scam
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to direct a Delhi trial court to defer proceedings on the framing of charges against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad in the alleged land-for-job scam case. In his latest application before the top court, Lalu Prasad Yadav sought a direction to the trial court to postpone proceedings until August 12, when his petition seeking quashing of the FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is scheduled for hearing before the Delhi High Court. Refusing to issue any directions, a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh remarked that the petition pending before the Delhi High Court would not turn "infructuous" even if the trial court proceeds to frame charges. It added that the trial court proceedings, including the framing of charges, are naturally subject to the outcome of the quashing petition pending before the Delhi High Court. Earlier, on July 18, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench had refused to stay the trial proceedings against Lalu Prasad Yadav, observing that it would not retain such a small matter for its own consideration and that the Delhi High Court should decide his plea. Lalu Prasad Yadav moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the top court after the Delhi HC had rejected his application to stay the trial proceedings based on the charge sheets filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In his application before the Delhi High Court, the former Railway Minister argued that no police officer can investigate offences allegedly committed by a public servant where the offence is related to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of his public functions without approval of the competent authority. He contended that the registration of the FIR without such approval was illegal, rendering all subsequent actions - including the investigation, filing of charge sheets, and cognisance taken by the trial court - void ab initio (from the very beginning). After hearing the submissions, the Delhi High Court had granted liberty to Lalu Prasad Yadav to urge all his contentions before the trial court at the stage of framing of the charge and dismissed his plea seeking a stay on trial proceedings in the land-for-job case, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. As per the CBI case registered on May 18, 2022, during the period between 2004-2009, then Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav had obtained pecuniary advantages in the form of transfer of landed property in the name of his family members in lieu of appointment of substitutes in Group 'D' posts in different Zones of the Railways. Several people themselves or through their family members, allegedly sold or gifted their land in favour of the family members of Lalu Prasad Yadav and a private company controlled by him and his family. "No advertisement or any public notice was issued for such appointment of substitutes in Zonal Railways, yet the appointees, who were residents of Patna, were appointed as substitutes in different Zonal Railways located in Mumbai, Jabalpur, Kolkata, Jaipur and Hajipur," the CBI had said.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
SC hears Delhi govt plea on ban of older vehicles
New Delhi, July 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court today heard a plea filed by the Delhi government, seeking enforcement directions on the ban on old petrol and diesel vehicles within the capital. The plea highlights the need for strict implementation of existing court and National Green Tribunal (NGT) directives, which prohibit petrol vehicles older than 15 years and diesel vehicles older than 10 years from operating on Delhi roads due to concerns about pollution. A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai considered the matter and sought a status report from the authorities on the implementation and monitoring mechanisms adopted so far. The court has indicated that the matter will be taken up further after submission of the report, given the urgency of addressing environmental degradation and public health hazards in the national capital. In a related issue, the apex court also set up a special bench to hear old motor accident cases. In a move aimed at reducing case pendency, the apex court constituted a special bench to exclusively hear old Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) cases and criminal appeals. According to a notice issued by the Supreme Court Registry on July 29, the newly formed bench will comprise Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria, and will sit every Monday and Friday at starting August 1. The Registry has also appealed to members of the bar, parties-in-person, and all stakeholders to cooperate by avoiding adjournment requests so that pendency in these matters can be effectively reduced. UNI SNG PRS
