Justice Girish Kathpalia, who was presiding over the case, pointed out that the lawyer even switched off his video while the court was dictating its order. The judge stated that when advocates participate in hearings from their offices using video conferencing, they can assist courts better and more efficiently.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court expressed its disapproval of a lawyer who attended a virtual court hearing while standing in a park. The court emphasized that even though hybrid courts allow online appearances, maintaining proper decorum is essential.
ALSO READ: ‘Lawyers Strikes Unacceptable’: Supreme Court Enforces ‘zero tolerance’ Policy
Justice Girish Kathpalia, who was presiding over the case, pointed out that the lawyer even switched off his video while the court was dictating its order. The judge stated that when advocates participate in hearings from their offices using video conferencing, they can assist courts better and more efficiently.
“But for that, the counsel has to understand that the decorum of the court must be kept in mind. Quite often, on account of connectivity issues at the end of counsel appearing through video-conferencing the counsel remains inaudible. Often, the video is not switched on. The hybrid courts also are courts only,” the court observed.
Justice Kathpalia further remarked on the lack of seriousness shown by some lawyers during virtual hearings.
“Some advocate standing in a park with a mobile phone in his hand seeks to appear as counsel for appellants.. Even in the daily causelist of this court, specific directions to maintain decorum while appearing through video-conferencing are circulated everyday. But to no avail.”
To address this issue, the court directed the Delhi High Court Bar Association and all district bar associations in Delhi to educate their members on the proper way to attend virtual hearings.
The judge also highlighted that an amount of money has been spent on electronic infrastructure in courts to facilitate video conferencing. He mentioned that this system was introduced to ease the burden on lawyers who need to travel between different court complexes in Delhi.
Despite the lawyer’s unprofessional conduct, the court decided not to dismiss the case, as it would unfairly impact the litigant, who was not responsible for the lawyer’s actions. The court refused to mark the lawyer’s appearance on that day but refrained from imposing strict penalties.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
