JUDICIARY AND VIDEO CONFERENCING
The Bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam at Madra High Court while virtual hearing a Lawyer appeared for a stationed car and “in a casual manner”. On that note, the Madras High Court expressed its chagrin at Lawyer’s conduct.
Court also mentioned that on the backseat of the car, another person was also sitting at the time when the Lawyer appeared for the Virtual Hearing.
“The Court opined that such way of appearing before the court amounts to disrespecting the Court proceedings as per the Rules of High Court Video Conferencing”.
Lastly, the Court directs the counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit on 04th February 2021. And, appear in person before the Court. Thereafter, the matter was posted for a physical hearing on 04th February 2021.
Delhi High Court
On this, the Delhi High Court on Thursday (04th February) said that it is “simply shocking” that advocates are presenting the matters through video-conferencing while being on “roads, sitting in parks and even walking on stairs”, making it strenuous for the court to conduct proceedings as are not audible properly.
In November 2020, the Presiding Officer DRT-I Ahmedabad, Vinay Goel had charged a cost of Rs. 10,000 upon an Advocate Vishal Gori who attended the virtual hearing while sitting inside his car.
Inter Alia, there have been incidents where Advocates appear for a virtual court in inappropriate dresses. The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (23rd September), while taking up a Criminal Misc. Application noticed that applicant-accused No. 1, Ajit Kubhabhai Gohil, who was present before the Court through video conferencing, was spitting openly.
Further, the Court directed the applicant-accused No. 1 to deposit the amount of Rs. 500/- on or before the next date of hearing, failing of which will result in a delay for hearing.
Though due to extraordinary reasons, we are enforced to hear matters through video conferencing. Court hopes and trusts that members of the bar will follow the minimum decorum.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said; in June, the Supreme Court had accepted the apology of an advocate who had made an appearance before the Court, while lying on the bed and wearing a T-shirt, and emphasized on the need to maintain minimum court etiquette during court video hearings.
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan HC once adjourned a Bail plea on account of inappropriately dressed counsel in a “baniyan” (undervest) during the Video conference hearing.
Furthermore, Calcutta High Court initiates Suo moto contempt action against an advocate-on-record; for posting on ‘LinkedIn’ a screenshot of the virtual court hearing of the day.
Calcutta High Court observes that taking a screenshot of the virtual court proceedings is akin to clicking a photograph of an actual court proceeding. However, the contempt proceedings were later dropped with a warning to the lawyer not to repeat such conduct in the future.
Read more blogs @advocatetanwar.com