Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Rajadithya Sadasivan, an advocate with 14 years of standing, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The petition challenged the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the High Court of Karnataka for listing matters for physical hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner sought to set aside all provisions of the impugned SOP and sought directions for physical hearing of all cases. The background of the case lies in the nationwide lockdown declared from 24th March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely affected the functioning of courts. From 1st June 2020, limited functioning including physical hearing of all courts in Karnataka was commenced, governed by SOPs issued for the High Court and District Courts, which were amended from time to time. The petitioner argued that the SOP was arbitrary, illegal, and violated the rights of advocates and litigants. The court, however, noted that the situation was extraordinary and that it was impossible to find a perfect solution acceptable to all stakeholders. The court referred to the order of the Supreme Court dated 6th April 2020 in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No.5/2020 (In Re: guidelines for Court functioning through video conferencing during Covid-19 pandemic), which recognized the use of technology and the need for innovative measures. The court held that the SOP was a reasonable administrative measure to balance health concerns and access to justice, and that it was not arbitrary or malafide. The court emphasized that during extraordinary circumstances, administrative decisions must be left to the concerned authorities and judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or malafides, which were absent. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Challenge to SOP for physical hearing during pandemic - Petitioner, an advocate, challenged SOP issued by High Court for listing matters for physical hearing during COVID-19 lockdown - Court held that the SOP was a reasonable administrative measure to balance health concerns and access to justice, and not arbitrary or malafide - Held that the petition was not maintainable as the SOP was within the administrative domain of the High Court and not subject to judicial review in PIL (Paras 1-8). B) Administrative Law - Standard Operating Procedure - COVID-19 Pandemic - Reasonableness - SOP issued by High Court for limited physical hearing from 1st June 2020 - Court noted that the SOP was amended from time to time based on ground realities and feedback - Held that the SOP was a pragmatic solution to an extraordinary situation and did not warrant interference (Paras 2-7). C) Judicial Review - Extraordinary Circumstances - Doctrine of Necessity - Court observed that during a pandemic, perfect solutions are impossible and administrative decisions must be left to the concerned authorities - Held that judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or malafides, which were absent here (Paras 2, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the High Court of Karnataka for listing matters for physical hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the rights of advocates and litigants, and whether the court should set aside the SOP and direct the High Court to allow physical hearing of all cases.
Final Decision
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition, holding that the SOP was a reasonable administrative measure and not subject to judicial review.
Law Points
- Administrative law
- Judicial review
- Standard Operating Procedure
- COVID-19 pandemic
- Physical hearing
- Video conferencing
- Public Interest Litigation
- Extraordinary circumstances
- Doctrine of necessity
- Separation of powers
