Delhi High Court Imposes Rs 10,000 Costs On Advocate: a garden walk and a weak connection during a virtual arbitration hearing breached the Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. New Delhi: Counsel for the petitioner in an arbitration petition must pay costs of Rs 10,000 and appear in person on the next date, […]
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on counsel for the decree holders in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award against NHAI, for appearing in a virtual hearing from a moving car, holding that this violates the Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 and disrupts proceedings.
The Supreme Court Bar Association condemned a litigant’s disruptive conduct in court and urged the Union government to frame guidelines regulating the recording, editing and circulation of courtroom proceedings and videos to preserve judicial decorum and prevent misuse.
The Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) has warned lawyers against creating or sharing reels and videos from court premises, stating that such content undermines the dignity and ethics of the legal profession and may attract disciplinary action under the Advocates Act.
The Gujarat High Court objected to a girl student’s attire, stating that dignity and decorum of the court must be upheld. The Bench questioned her clothing, sparking a tense exchange as she challenged IIT Gandhinagar’s disciplinary action.
The Allahabad High Court dropped criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate after he tendered an unconditional apology for his remarks in open court. The Court accepted his apology, noting his remorse and assurance that such conduct would not be repeated.
The Delhi High Court framed criminal contempt charges against a Delhi advocate for scandalous allegations in court and a similar LinkedIn post. The court said he lowered its authority and interfered with judicial proceedings by uploading the post.
Today, On 23rd February, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant sternly rebuked Advocate Mathews Nedumpara for reckless submissions while mentioning a petition challenging the collegium system. Warning him of strict action, CJI said, “Be careful… you have seen me in Chandigarh and Delhi.”
The Delhi High Court strongly criticised lawyers for joining virtual court hearings from moving cars, observing that such conduct causes inconvenience, wastes precious judicial time, and hampers access to justice, defeating the purpose of using technology in courts.
The Delhi High Court discharged a lawyer in a contempt case after he tendered an unconditional apology for using inappropriate language toward a woman judicial officer. The Court accepted his assurance to always maintain the decorum and dignity of the judiciary.
