Supreme Court urges party-in-person to attend physically after raising doubts over misuse of virtual mode in Lalita Kumari contempt petition.
Case in News
Supreme Court questions misuse of virtual mode, asks woman litigant to appear in person for hearing .
Case Overview
Case Name –Anindita Versus Sudhanshu Sarangi And Ors., MA 1045/2024
In a notable hearing on July 23, the Supreme Court of India questioned a party-in-person woman litigant for persistently appearing through virtual mode despite being offered legal aid and travel expenses . A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with her miscellaneous application relating to alleged contempt of the Lalita Kumari judgment . The Court expressed concern over the litigant’s conduct, including contradictory statements and suspicion of someone assisting her off-camera . The Bench insisted she appear physically if she wished to argue further .
Key Aspects
Before proceeding with legal evaluation, the Court assessed the petitioner’s conduct and technical issues hampering effective hearings .
- Woman litigant appeared repeatedly via virtual mode citing livelihood and family care duties .
- Justices noted suspicious glances off-screen suggesting hidden off-camera assistance .
- Petitioner made conflicting statements about presence of co-petitioners .
- The case involves a contempt plea under Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. judgment .
- The petitioner sought recall of the 20.11.2023 order and restoration of her appeal .
Legal Insights
The matter touches on key constitutional and procedural concerns about access to justice, court decorum and scope of contempt .
- Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Mandatory FIR registration guidelines .
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Petitioner alleges willful disobedience of a binding judgment .
- NALSA Scheme under Article 39A of Constitution – Offers free legal aid and travel assistance .
- Two past Supreme Court decisions held third parties cannot file contempt on Lalita Kumari case .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court of India emphasized that physical presence was necessary for effective hearing in this sensitive matter . The Bench offered legal aid, appointment of a Supreme Court advocate and complete travel expense reimbursement under the NALSA scheme . It also asked the petitioner to argue on whether two earlier rulings on contempt require reconsideration . The Court will now decide whether to recall the previous order and permit her appeal . The petitioner was told to “make up her mind”, to which she affirmatively responded before the hearing concluded .
Source – Supreme Court of India
Read also – DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT
