### MANDAMUS ISSUED TO IMPLEMENT HYBRID HEARING FACILITIES ACROSS ALL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONS

In brief

The question

Whether the District Consumer Commissions must provide hybrid hearing facilities through video conferencing to the public and advocates.

The court held

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

It also directed

Furthermore, all ten District Commissions were directed to publish the VC links in their daily cause lists within the same period

No new orders were passed regarding staff strength as that issue remains under consideration in the related PIL and contempt proceedings

01Facts

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

p. 1

The 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

pp. 1-2

Additionally, the Petitioner sought a staff strength increase, noting that current staffing levels were based on 1986 requirements

p. 2

Earlier 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

pp. 3-4

02Issues

i.Whether the District Consumer Commissions must provide hybrid hearing facilities through video conferencing to the public and advocates.

p. 1 / para. 1

ii.Whether 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.

p. 2 / para. 4 · p. 5 / para. 12

03Law 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

p. 1

The 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

pp. 5-6

For the infrastructure issue, the court relied on the administrative obligations of the State to provide accessible justice through technological integration

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court observed that while four out of ten District Commissions were already utilizing VC facilities, six remained without functional hybrid hearing capabilities

pp. 5-6

A proposal dated 27.06.2025 for infrastructure procurement had already been submitted by the State Commission to the GNCTD

p. 5

The Court reasoned that modern judicial and quasi-judicial bodies should facilitate hybrid hearings for the convenience of advocates and litigants

p. 2, 6

Regarding 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

pp. 5-6