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
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Madras HC restrains temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan from making defamatory remarks against Vedic scholar Dushyanth Sridhar
The Madras High Court has restrained temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, of Srirangam in Tiruchi district, from making defamatory statements aimed at maligning Vedic scholar and orator Dushyanth Sridhar's reputation in any manner on social media, particualrly X and YouTube. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted the interim injunction until the disposal of a defamation suit filed by the orator early this year seeking damages to the tune of ₹1 crore from the activist for having already allegedly made several abusive and derogatory remarks against him on social media. The orator had filed the suit in February along with an application seeking the leave of the court to institute the case in Chennai despite him being a resident of Bengaluru and the defendant being a resident of Srirangam. He claimed many of his followers were in Chennai and therefore, a part of cause of action had arisen here. Senior counsel Satish Parasaran relied upon a 2011 judgment of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom in Turner versus Grovit and a 2022 judgment of the High Court of Australia in Dow Jones and Co Inc versus Gutnick to contend that his client was entitled to choose a forum of his convenience. Accepting his submissions, Justice Babu had allowed the application to grant leave on June 23, 2025, and directed the High Court Registry to number the suit. Subsequently, he took up the plea for grant of interim injunction, until the disposal of the suit, and gave four weeks' time for the activist to file a reply. The judge said, even during the arguments on the application to grant leave to file the suit, the activist had admitted to have made certain statements against the orator on social media but his defence was that those statements were neither defamatory nor derogatory. 'This court, on going through the statements made by the respondent, prima facie finds that such statements are defamatory in nature. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for,' the judge ordered. Advocate Rahul Balaji, representing Mr. Sridhar, said, the activist was in the habit of making objectionable statements against every other person on social media. He produced screenshots of statements made against a senior counsel in order to dissuade him from appearing for the orator. On being convinced that the statements made against the senior counsel were disparaging, Justice Babu wrote: 'Such statements have been made challenging the learned senior counsel who had appeared for the applicant... They are in the nature of making the learned senior counsel to keep him away from appearing in the cases.' Therefore, apart from injuncting the activist from making defamatory statements against the orator, the judge also restrained him from making any kind of statements, in the future, against the lawyers appearing for the opponents in his cases.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Cash-hit cong-ruled states not able to fill job vacancies: Prahlad
Hubballi: Congress-ruled states like Karnataka are unable to fill job vacancies due to the precarious financial condition they face, alleged Union Minister Pralhad Joshi on Sunday. Responding to a question related to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi reportedly targeting the BJP government at the Centre on the issue of unemployment, Joshi hit out at the former, accusing him of making statements based on what his advisers tell him, instead of himself going into details. 'Mr Rahul Gandhi doesn't always go into details. He will just give a reaction based on some feedback that his advisers give him. He doesn't go personally into details. Actually, post Covid, especially if I can say, employment rate has increased like anything, EPFO numbers itself show that,' Joshi said. Speaking to reporters here, he said as far as filling up vacancies in the central government are concerned, from 2022 to till date, every month there is Rozgar Mela, and every month 50,000 to one lakh people are being absorbed into the government. 'So far, in the last two-and-half years, more than seven-and-half lakh people have been recruited into various government departments and institutions,' he added. Noting that the ruling Congress in Karnataka had not filled more than 2 lakh vacancies in the state, the union minister said these vacancies have not been filled as the government is unable to pay the serving employees itself on time. 'They (Karnataka government) are not able to pay the serving employees on time. The payment of salary is delayed by ten to fifteen days to twenty days. Their (government) financial condition is precarious, so they are not filling up the vacancies,' he claimed. 'Before talking about something else, I will ask Mr Rahul Gandhi to look at what is happening in Karnataka, Telangana and Himachal Pradesh. They have governments in three states and they are in very bad shape,' he added.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Admissible As Evidence': SC Sets Aside Ruling On Secretly Recorded Conversation Of Spouse
Last Updated: The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that termed recording a wife's phone calls without her consent a violation of privacy. The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, holding that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge or consent amounts to a 'clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy. The High Court had also observed that such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence before a family court. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma thus held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings. 'Some arguments have been made that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony and matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore, infringing the objective of section 122 of the Evidence Act." 'We don't think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them," the bench observed while pronouncing the judgment. The remarks by the top court came after a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision. view comments First Published: July 14, 2025, 11:12 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
