{"id":258,"date":"2020-08-20T10:54:03","date_gmt":"2020-08-20T10:54:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/?p=258"},"modified":"2020-08-20T10:54:05","modified_gmt":"2020-08-20T10:54:05","slug":"supreme-court-heard-over-15000-cases-via-video-conferencing-in-the-100-days-of-covid-19-pandemic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/2020\/08\/20\/supreme-court-heard-over-15000-cases-via-video-conferencing-in-the-100-days-of-covid-19-pandemic\/","title":{"rendered":"SUPREME COURT HEARD OVER 15,000 CASES VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING IN THE 100 DAYS OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The\nSupreme Court on Wednesday intimated that it has conducted hearing of more than\n15,000 cases since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, by means of Video\nConferencing and disposed of approximately 4300 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court of India did not stop functioning throughout this entire period though some preferences were accorded to urgent issues. The Registry was not shut down even for a day from March 16, 2020 till date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As\nper the press note issued by the Apex Court, 1,021 Benches of the Court heard a\ntotal of 15,596 matters from March 23, 2020 till date. These include\n10,754 main matters, 3,419 connected matters and 1,423 matters listed before\nthe Registrar Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of\nthese, the Supreme Court has successfully disposed of approximately 4,300\nmatters. The press note compares these figures alongside disposal rates\nin other jurisdictions like the UK (which decided 29 Case between March 18 and\nAugust 17); the US (which decided 44 Case between March 20 and August\n17); Canada (which decided 14 Case between March 27 and August 17), etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statistics\nreleased by the Supreme Court includes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.    \nTotal No. of Advocates appeared through\nVideo\/Tele-Conferencing- 50,475 approximately<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.    \nTotal Number of Video Conference footfall of\nAdvocates, Litigants & Media persons- 65,000 approximately<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.    \nCases file through e-filing- 2,930<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.    \nCases filed via physical counters- 3,194<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npress note highlights that the SC Registry has not been shut down even for a\nsingle day from March 16, 2020 till date. This was made possible despite\naround a hundred and quarter members of the Registry staff and their immediate\nfamily testing Covid-19 positive, due to the aggressive measures taken by the\nCourt to check the spread of infection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other\nsteps taken by the Supreme Court to ensure access to justice and adhere to the\nopen court concept include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To\nfacilitate the lawyers and litigants, who may face difficulty in joining the\nvideo Conferencing;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.    \n12 facilitation rooms have been created. Of\nthese, 5 facilitation rooms are functional from Additional Building Complex\nof the SC and 7 VC facilitation rooms are functional, one each from the\nDistrict Court Complex of Delhi. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.    \nTechnical VC assistance is provided in these VC\nfacilitation rooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.    \n7 Dedicated help lines have been established\ncovering all aspects of assistance to advocates and litigants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\nTo facilitate the media to witness and report the proceedings, dedicated\nmedia rooms have been established and approximately 30 media persons may\nsee the proceedings live.\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court on Wednesday intimated that it has conducted hearing of more than 15,000 cases since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, by means of Video Conferencing and disposed of approximately 4300 cases. The Supreme Court of India did not stop functioning throughout this entire period though some preferences were accorded to urgent issues.Read more about SUPREME COURT HEARD OVER 15,000 CASES VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING IN THE 100 DAYS OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethicallegal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":265,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258\/revisions\/265"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}