(Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)
Pradyuman Bisht __________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India & Ors. ____________________________ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 99/2015, decided on December 11, 2017
(For Stay Application – IA 10142/2015, For Grant of Interim Relief – IA 10713/2015 and IA No. 67042/2017-Appln(s) For Clarification/Direction on Behalf of State of Bihar and IA No. 85536/2017 – Appln(s) For Intervention Application and IA No. 85538/2017-Permission to Appear and Argue in-Person IA No. 5353/2017 – Appln(s) For Full Hearing and Disposal)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Applications (IA No(s). 85536/2017 and 85538/2017) for intervention and to argue in-person are rejected.
3. Liberty to file the status report.
4. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, seeks further time to furnish information about the Tribunals from whom the information has not so far been received and also whether terminal of the CCTV can be available with the supervising authority, particularly, the High Courts in respect of the subordinate courts and the Tribunals under their jurisdiction.
5. The High Courts are free to examine this aspect and if it is found viable, the High Courts may have such terminals which may be perhaps useful for the vigilance and oversight of the courts and the Tribunals functioning within their jurisdiction under Articles 227/235 of the Constitution of India.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the High Court who may send their views and status reports, if any, by 31st January, 2018.
7. List for further consideration on Monday, the 5th February, 2018.
———
