Facts
The Petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for the resumption of video conferencing (VC) facilities and the provision of water facilities across ten District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in Delhi
Source reference: p. 1The Petitioner argued that while VC was available during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was discontinued thereafter, despite other judicial bodies (High Court, Supreme Court, and State Commission) operating in hybrid mode
Source reference: p. 1-2Additionally, the Petitioner sought a staff strength increase, noting that current staffing levels were based on 1986 requirements
Source reference: p. 2Earlier litigation (W.P.(C) 10460/2023 and a contempt petition) regarding staff shortages had already resulted in court directions for the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to fill vacancies
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
Whether the District Consumer Commissions must provide hybrid hearing facilities through video conferencing to the public and advocates.
Source reference: p. 1 / para. 1Whether directions should be issued to increase the sanctioned staff strength and fill vacancies in the District and State Commissions despite pending parallel litigation on the same subject.
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 4, p. 5 / para. 12Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Source reference: p. 1The court applied the principle of judicial economy and administrative law by declining to pass fresh orders on staff strength because the matter was already sub judice in earlier proceedings (W.P.(C) 10460/2023 and CONT.CAS(C) 1394/2024), thereby avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings on the same cause of action
Source reference: p. 5-6For the infrastructure issue, the court relied on the administrative obligations of the State to provide accessible justice through technological integration
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Court observed that while four out of ten District Commissions were already utilizing VC facilities, six remained without functional hybrid hearing capabilities
Source reference: p. 5-6A proposal dated 27.06.2025 for infrastructure procurement had already been submitted by the State Commission to the GNCTD
Source reference: p. 5The Court reasoned that modern judicial and quasi-judicial bodies should facilitate hybrid hearings for the convenience of advocates and litigants
Source reference: p. 2, 6Regarding staff shortages, the Court determined that since the Petitioner had already invoked the Court's jurisdiction in previous petitions where specific directions were already issued to monitor vacancies, no further adjudication was required in the present PIL to prevent overlapping orders
Source reference: p. 5-6Holding
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Respondents to ensure that video conferencing facilities for hybrid hearings are made functional in the remaining six District Commissions (West, New Delhi, North-West, Central, East, and South) within eight weeks
Furthermore, all ten District Commissions were directed to publish the VC links in their daily cause lists within the same period
Source reference: p. 6No new orders were passed regarding staff strength as that issue remains under consideration in the related PIL and contempt proceedings
Source reference: p. 5-6Original Court PDF
S B Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 6355/2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in