Supreme Court lawyers are split over the decision to resume physical hearings, with some senior lawyers preferring a hybrid mode while many others hit hard financially by the pandemic wanting a return to the old format.

A group of senior lawyers on Wednesday urged Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana to adopt a hybrid model of hearing instead of making physical presence of advocates mandatory, on a day the Supreme Court resumed physical hearings after a Covid-induced hiatus of one and a half years.

Under the hybrid mode, it will be up to the lawyer to decide whether he or she wants to be present during physical hearings or appear online.

According to the apex court’s decision, physical hearings will be held on Wednesdays and Thursdays. A mix of offline and online hearings will be conducted on Tuesdays. On Mondays and Fridays the court will continue to hold virtual hearings.

CJI Ramana had earlier issued a directive that advocates must appear physically in the apex court during the in-person hearings.

Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi on Wednesday pleaded for hybrid hearing. Senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh, however, stoutly opposed the appeal and defended the resumption of physical hearings.

Singh suggested that if necessary senior lawyers, including himself, should take a break for a year or six months to enable struggling lawyers to appear in physical hearings.

The pandemic has drastically brought down the incomes of most lawyers. Some senior lawyers, however, have seen their earnings rise on account of virtual hearings, which has allowed them to attend multiple proceedings across the country on a day from one location.

Sibal took the matter of hybrid hearings up on behalf of a group of senior lawyers during the mentioning time. Referring to CJI Ramana’s decision to resume physical hearings mandatorily every Wednesday and Thursday, Sibal pleaded that there should not be any such hard and fast rule.

His argument was that in certain cases like those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a large volume of files make it difficult to carry them to and from court. In such cases the lawyers should be allowed to argue online, Sibal said.

He, however, clarified that the senior lawyers were not opposed to physical hearings and were willing to appear in certain cases. He pointed out that most high courts had adopted hybrid hearings.

SCBA president Singh opposed the senior lawyers’ plea for hybrid hearings.

“I am opposing the plea. I want physical hearings to in fact start on all days. The senior lawyers who have difficulty can afford to take a break for six months or even one year, but junior lawyers cannot afford to do that. They are literally starving. Even I can take a break. Let us all take a break,” Singh submitted.

Justice Ramana said that since the decision to resume physical hearings had been taken by a committee of judges, he would have to consult his colleagues before taking a call.

The CJI, heading a bench that also had Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, told Sibal that the decision to restore physical hearings was taken following multiple representations from the Bar.

Wednesdays and Thursdays, or the days earmarked for physical hearings, are listed as non-miscellaneous days during which mostly old or part-heard matters are taken up. Mondays and Fridays, when the virtual mode will be opted for, are treated as miscellaneous days when new cases are heard.