Rising concern over conduct of lawyers in virtual hearings
Born out of necessity during the COVID-19 lockdown five years ago, virtual courtrooms are now grappling with a different challenge – growing indiscipline among lawyers and litigants who flout decorum during online hearings.
A virtual court hearing functions like a regular court proceeding but is conducted via video conferencing platforms. Once a matter is listed, parties and lawyers receive a secure video link to join the hearing remotely. The system was introduced during the pandemic, when physical courtrooms were shut to curb the spread of the virus, but the judiciary needed to continue functioning.
The facility has proven a boon for lawyers, who can now attend multiple hearings across different courts, and even cities, within a single day, without the burden of travel. For litigants too, it has eased the hassle of appearing in person for each hearing.
Screen-time shenanigans
However, the system's flexibility has also led to blatant misuse. One egregious example involved a man attending a Gujarat High Court hearing from his toilet. In another case, also in Gujarat, a video went viral showing a senior advocate appearing to sip beer during a virtual session.
In Delhi, the High Court recently took strong exception to a female lawyer who joined a hearing via mobile phone while walking through a public park. Though she claimed to be at the Agra court complex, the judge was unconvinced.
'Despite repeated directions, certain sections of the Bar have failed to understand the decorum of the court,' observed Justice Girish Kathpalia. He urged Bar Associations across Delhi to sensitise their members regarding proper conduct during virtual appearances.
Justice Kathpalia reminded that the videoconferencing facility was extended to enable counsel to appear from their offices, thereby sparing them the ordeal of rushing between multiple court complexes.
Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in February 2023, strongly supported the continued use of virtual hearings, saying, 'Technology is here to stay for the future, forever.' But recent developments underscore that its success depends not just on technical infrastructure, but equally on courtroom conduct.
Senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh did not mince words: 'Online hearing, which started more like a necessity, is being misused by lawyers. It is trivialising a solemn court function. Court hearings cannot be argued from a car, a park, or while having a beer. Strict guidelines must be enforced,' he told The Hindu.
Missing penalties
While the Delhi High Court, a pioneer in institutionalising video conferencing, issued comprehensive rules in 2021, these mainly focus on behavioural expectations. They mandate that 'participants wear sober attire', with advocates in professional dress as per the Advocates Act, 1961.
The rules also state that participants must look into the camera, remain attentive, and refrain from multitasking. 'All proceedings conducted by a court via video conferencing shall be judicial proceedings, and all the courtesies and protocols applicable to a physical court shall apply to these virtual proceedings,' the rules say.
However, no specific penalties are prescribed. Courts may invoke the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or exercise their inherent powers in egregious cases.
Senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose, whose post about the toilet incident went viral, advocated for clear penalties and their strict enforcement. 'There should be penalties prescribed, and they should be strictly enforced,' he told The Hindu.
He also called for better awareness: 'Dos and don'ts must be clearly listed on court websites. Litigants may lack familiarity, but lawyers have no excuse.'
Sharanya Tripathi, associate advocate at Jotwani Associates, called the trend 'deeply disrespectful to the court's dignity'. 'Everyone attending a virtual hearing, whether lawyer or litigant, must understand that appearing through a screen does not reduce the formality of the courtroom,' she asserted.
'If someone joins from an unsuitable location or behaves disrespectfully, the court should act promptly by removing the participant, imposing costs, or initiating contempt proceedings in serious cases,' Ms. Tripathi said.
Courts could also hold legal representatives accountable for ensuring that their clients maintain proper decorum during virtual hearings, she added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC transfers Malinga assault case from Dholpur to Jaipur
1 2 Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court Monday ordered the transfer of a high-profile assault case involving former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga from Dholpur to Jaipur, citing concerns over witness safety and the accused's influential status in the region. The single-judge bench of Justice Umashankar Vyas issued the transfer order while hearing a criminal transfer petition filed by assistant engineer Harshadhipati, the victim in the case. The case stems from an alleged assault on Harshadhipati and junior engineer Nitin Gulati at the Bari discom office in Dholpur on March 28, 2022. Malinga, who is currently out on bail, has faced multiple charges of assault on public servants. He was a Congress MLA from Bari but switched over to BJP prior to assembly elections in 2023. He, however, lost the election. "We told court that victim and witnesses face life threats in Dholpur as the accused is a strongman," said Akhil Simlote, counsel for the petitioner. The court noted that a procession organised by Malinga's supporters following his bail release demonstrated his significant influence in the area. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The case will now be heard at the SC-ST Court in Jaipur district, with Justice Vyas directing for a timely completion of the trial. The high court has directed the Jaipur Police Commissioner to implement robust security measures during the case hearings. "The high court has directed appointment of one SI and two ASIs under the Case Officers Scheme in the matter to assist the lower court and the prosecution," Simlote said. Malinga's bail history has been contentious. Initially granted in May 2022 due to Covid-19, the bail was cancelled by the high court on July 5, 2024, because of the celebratory procession organised by his supporters. Though he again surrendered and was jailed on the high court's directions, the Supreme Court stayed the bail cancellation on Dec 13, 2024.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Lawyer's kidnapping and murder case cracked; 8 held
Belagavi: Raibag police cracked the kidnapping and murder of lawyer Santosh Patil from Raibag by arresting eight accused and launching a search for two others who are absconding. SP Dr Bhimashankar Guled on Monday described the case as one of the most challenging investigations undertaken by police. "Both the victim and the main accused in the case are lawyers, which made the probe even more complex," he said. The arrested are Shivagouda Basagouda Patil, 47, Bharat Kallappa Koli, 26, Kiran Vasant Kempawade, 27, Suresh Bhimappa Nandi, 19, Uday Bhimappa Misennavar, 23, Sanjaykumar Yallappa Halabannalavar, 27, Ramu Bhimappa Dandapure,33, and Manjunath Basavaraj Talawar, 23. All have been produced before the court, which sent them to a 14-day judicial custody. According to SP Guled, the case began with a complaint filed on April 29 by the victim's wife, Rakha Patil, alleging that her husband, lawyer Santosh, was kidnapped by fellow lawyer Shivagouda and his associate Koli. Misennavar, a suspect from Belagavi, was detained and he named the other accused. Misennavar revealed that Santosh was murdered with sharp weapons on the same day of the abduction on April 27, and his body was taken to the Ramnagar forest in Karwar district, where it was burned using petrol. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo After days of searching, police located the spot and recovered charred remains, which were sent for DNA testing. The report confirmed the remains were of Santosh. Land dispute behind murder The motive behind the murder stemmed from a disputed property deal. According to SP Guled, the victim Santosh's late brother Laxman Patil worked as an assistant to Shivagouda, and together they purchased six sites in Indi town (Vijayapura district) and 1 acre-4 gunta of prime land in Raibag. All properties were registered in Laxman's name. Following Laxman's death during the Covid-19 pandemic, Santosh transferred the six sites to Laxman's wife and was in the process of transferring the Raibag land as well. This allegedly angered Shivagouda, who objected to the transfer. In retaliation, Shivagouda gave a contract for Rs 14 lakh to Halabannavar of Bailhongal for killing Santosh through his assistant lawyer Kiran Kempawade. Two accused — Mahaveer Hanji and Nagaraj Naik — are still absconding. Police have seized cash, the vehicle used for the crime, and the weapons involved.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Allahabad HC dismisses pleas challenging govt order on merger of primary schools
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed petitions challenging a state government order that directed steps to be taken for the merger of government primary schools. The court had clubbed two petitions filed over the issue and reserved its order on Friday after completion of arguments. The petitions were filed against the government's June 16 order, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Shiksha Department, directing merger of government schools under the supervision and control of the basic shiksha adhikaris (BSAs). The petitioners had also challenged a June 24 follow-up order, issuing a list of 105 schools for the purpose of merger. 'It is essential to add a word with regard to the National Education Policy, 2020, which includes various issues including the pairing of the schools. The policy in itself is laudible and prescriptions have been given with regard to the steps to be taken to ensure that education is imparted at the initial level to all the citizens and the children of the country. There being no material to the contrary in respect of guidelines of pairing in the policy of 2020, which can be said to be arbitrary or in violation of Article 21A of the Constitution and finding the impugned Government Orders to be in furtherance of the said objective, no interference is called for. Present petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed,' read the judgment passed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia. The bench added, 'The obligation cast upon the State shall be scrupulously followed and the State is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State. It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law.' In the order, the court observed that it was important to notice that the Central government had issued the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, prescribing various measures in the interest of students and for improving the infrastructure of primary schools. Various government orders have been issued, forming committees for implementation of the guidelines issued in the NEP 2020, the bench said. The court noted, 'Although not cited or argued by either of the parties, Rule 4(3) has some seminal importance as the local authority has been saddled with a responsibility of identifying a neighbourhood school where the children can be admitted and such information is to be made public; the school as referred would be a school as defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, thus, on a conjoint reading of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3), what transpires is that it is the duty of the State Government to establish schools as far as practical at a distance which is closest to the habitation, and if the same is not possible, to ensure that the children are provided facilities such as transportation etc., and for identification of a school which may be available in the neighbourhood in case the State Government cannot establish school, which would also include school other than the school established by the Government as is the mandate of Section 2(n) read with Section 12 of the RTE Act. Any other interpretation of Rule 4(1) would do violation to the statutory rule keeping in view the considerations of a large State such as the State of Uttar Pradesh with regard to availability of land and other resources and keeping in view the fiscal health of the State concerned.' It added, 'Thus, on a complete analysis of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) & Rule 4(3) read conjointly, it is clear that the State Government is bound to establish school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and in the absence thereof, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities etc., and in conjunction thereof identifying the neighbourhood schools, whether they are government schools or otherwise.'
