Making the Supreme Court of India accessible to litigants appearing in person

The low stature of litigants in person who appear before the Supreme Court of India & how should the Court treat them. Should the Supreme Court allow a litigant who is appearing in person to speak in Hindi if he so requests 

- Seema Sapra 

I was sitting in Justice Aravind Kumar's Court in the Supreme Court of India on 17 February 2023 while he was hearing Chamber Matters sitting singly. 

A man appeared before him as a litigant in person with a case listed. He was accompanied, as is now the norm for litigants appearing in person, by a Policeman. 

The litigant politely requested the Court if he could address it in Hindi. Justice Aravind Kumar's response was in my opinion unjust. The Judge said and I paraphrase - I will understand you if you speak in Hindi but the language of the Supreme Court is English. The litigant replied that he had on earlier occasions been permitted to address the Court in Hindi  by a  different Judge. I was hoping that the Judge would go on to show some sympathy to the aggrieved litigant and hear him in Hindi. The Judge did not even bother to decline the litigant's request for being heard in Hindi. The Judge made no attempt to solve the problem being faced by the litigant on account of his language impediment. The Judge did not even look at why the matter was listed and if any order could have been passed that day. Instead Justice Aravind Kumar simply directed the matter to be adjourned for 4 weeks and laughed as he did so. Meanwhile the confused and intimidated litigant profusely thanked the Judge and was led away by the Police. 

The man did not get justice that day. He did not even get a hearing. His case got further delayed by 4 weeks or more. And most unfortunate of all, the ordinary citizen standing before the Supreme Court that day seeking justice did not even get respect. 

The Supreme Court allows litigants to address the Court in person. It must then also provide an effective opportunity for a hearing to these litigants appearing in person. The Judge ought to have shown more compassion and should have taken some trouble to help this litigant. The Judge could easily have heard him in Hindi. However high a Judge might sit, he is a public servant employed to provide justice and to do so with compassion, sympathy and respect for the citizen standing before the Court. The real test of a Judge is how he treats poor, ordinary litigants in person, persons with the lowest stature in the Supreme Court.  

Several questions need to be asked. Should the Supreme Court not allow a litigant appearing in person to address the Court in Hindi, especially if the Judges on the Bench can speak Hindi? What other steps can the Supreme Court take to facilitate a hearing for a litigant appearing in person and facing difficulties whether on account of language or otherwise.? What effect does it have on a litigant appearing in person before the Supreme Court to be effectively in Police custody for the hearing, from the time of his/her entering the high security zone of the Supreme Court and until he/she exits that zone? Can any security concerns not be addressed in a less intrusive and less disrespectful way. Would a court official accompanying such litigant inside the high security zone of the Supreme Court not be a better way to address any security concerns instead of subjecting all litigants in person to what is nothing but police custody. Litigants who enter the high security zone and court rooms of the Supreme Court and who are represented by lawyers are not similarly escorted by the Police at all times. 

The Supreme Court speaking through its Chief Justices and its Judges claims to want to make the Court more accessible. Thus the Supreme Court is institutionally working toward making the Court more accessible to the People by the use of technology, the provision of facilities like virtual hearings as part of a hybrid system, the creation of off-site virtual hearing centres, online public databases of judgments, providing translations of its judgments into Indian languages other than English, live streaming of Court proceedings, and even the constitution of a Committee to conduct a disabled accessibility audit of the Supreme Court premises, among other measures. A Supreme Court that values accessibility should therefore always remain open and welcoming to litigants appearing in person. Unfortunately however, the Supreme Court of India is increasingly becoming a fortress with very controlled access and the hardest hit are litigants who choose to file and argue their cases on their own without using lawyers.