- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC may resume physical courts from Sept 1, if Covid situation improves
The Delhi High Court has decided to continue with restricted functioning till August 31, in the backdrop of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic. However, if the situation improves, a plan would be evolved for gradual opening of physical courts beginning September 1.The High Court’s administrative and general supervision committee said that in view of the spread of the coronavirus in the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court has decided to continue with restricted functioning till August 31, in the backdrop of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic. However, if the situation improves, a plan would be evolved for gradual opening of physical courts beginning September 1.
The High Court’s administrative and general supervision committee said that in view of the spread of the coronavirus in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, it has been decided to extend the suspended functioning of the court till August 31. “All the Benches of this Court would continue to take up and hear all the urgent matters through video conferencing. The Courts of Registrars and Joint Registrars of this Court shall take up the matters through video conferencing, where the files are already scanned. The evidence be recorded in ex-parte and uncontested matters where the same is required to be tendered by way of affidavit”, said an office order.
However, the High Court has said that subject to complete availability of public transport and subject to the situation in Delhi remaining stable, a plan would be evolved for gradual opening of physical courts from September 1 onwards.
“To begin with, on experimental basis, around one-fourth of the courts can resume physical functioning on a rotational basis while the rest can continue taking up matters through video conferencing. A comprehensive plan on the above lines will be prepared by the undersigned and placed before the “Committee for Preparation of Graded Action Plan” and thereafter before the Full Court for consideration”, said the office order.
The order said “it has also been ordered that the Courts of Registrars and Joint Registrars of this Court shall not pass any adverse order in non-urgent/routine matters where the concerned advocate/litigant is unable to join the proceedings through video conferencing, till the time the physical functioning of the courts is resumed.”