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
Scroll.in
24 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Why the judiciary is responsible for the current spate of slum demolitions in Delhi
In the first week of June, hundreds of houses in Madrasi Camp, a slum cluster in Delhi's Jangpura neighbourhood, were demolished by the Delhi Development Authority. The demolition followed an order from the Delhi High Court, passed on July 8, 2024, in a public interest litigation. The litigation had nothing to do with Madrasi Camp – its residents were not even a party to the case. The original petition was filed against two private builders for alleged illegal construction in a completely different neighborhood of Delhi, Shaheen Bagh, several kilometers away from Jangpura. In a sweeping order, the High Court expanded the scope of the petition, directing authorities to remove all encroachments from the Yamuna floodplains, a move that suddenly put thousands of homes in slum clusters abutting the river, including those in Madrasi Camp, at risk of demolition. 'This is a classic case of the court passing an order without appreciating the legal protections available to slum dwellers,' argued Talha Abdul Rahman, an Advocate on Record at the Supreme Court who represented some of the residents in court. 'The order was passed without even hearing the people whose lives it would upend.' The demolition at Madrasi Camp is not an isolated incident. Over the last year, Delhi has witnessed a spate of evictions from slums, often carried out with little to no notice. According to legal experts, this has been enabled by a recent shift in the judiciary's approach, which has increasingly tolerated summary evictions and diluted the legal rights of the urban poor. Play Safety net For over a decade, slum dwellers in Delhi were protected by a robust legal framework. The foundation was laid by the Delhi High Court's landmark 2010 judgment in Sudama Singh v Government of Delhi. The court held that the right to housing is a fundamental right and that slum residents could not be treated as 'secondary citizens'. It mandated 'meaningful engagement' with residents before any eviction and directed the government to frame a comprehensive rehabilitation policy. This led to the enactment of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act in 2010 and the subsequent notification of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy in 2015. The policy laid down a clear three-pronged test for a slum to be eligible for rehabilitation: it must have come up before January 1, 2006; the individual shanties within it must have been built before January 1, 2015; and it must consist of at least 50 households. The policy prioritised on-site rehabilitation – upgrading the slum where it stood or relocating residents within a five-kilometer radius to ensure their livelihoods and children's education were not disrupted. This framework was further cemented in 2019 by the Delhi High Court's judgment in Ajay Maken v Union of India. The court explicitly warned authorities against viewing slum dwellers as 'illegal encroachers' and laid down a detailed protocol for surveys and rehabilitation, making it clear that no demolition could occur without first completing this process. U-turn In 2022, however, the judiciary signalled a significant change of attitude when it came to slum dweller rights. In Vaishali (Minor) v Union of India, the Delhi High Court ruled that the 2015 rehabilitation policy was applicable only to the residents of 675 slum clusters identified in a list estimated to be three decades old, prepared by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board. 'This judgment has been the turning point,' said Anupradha Singh, an advocate and co-founder of the Nyay Neeti Foundation, which provides legal aid to marginalised communities. 'This list was prepared in the 1990s and has not even been notified. It is not mentioned in the 2015 policy or its parent Act.' The 69th National Sample Survey Office report from 2012 identified 6,343 slums in Delhi. By limiting the policy's protection to just 10% of them, the High Court's judgment made lakhs of slum residents vulnerable to eviction without rehabilitation. 'Welfare legislation must be interpreted in a liberal, inclusionary manner,' Singh said. 'However, this judgment is based on apprehension and exclusion.' This exclusionary approach has since been followed by the High Court in a series of cases in which the court has refused to provide relief to residents of demolished slums because of them not being part of the 675-cluster list. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in July 2023, further cementing the restrictive interpretation. Protector to destroyer The case of Madrasi Camp slum is another example of this new judicial approach that does not centre the fundamental rights of slum dwellers. The original public interest litigation in the Shabnam Burney case had nothing to do with the slum. Instead, it was a targeted petition against two builders in Shaheen Bagh. 'The court fell into error by expanding the scope of the petition to the whole of Delhi and passing a carte blanche order,' said Rahman. He contended that the order was passed in ignorance of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act and the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, which protect these slums. Significantly, the High Court's order even bypassed the protection granted to the list of 675 slums in its own 2022 Vaishali order. Rahman pointed out that Madrasi camp was within that list. The court's order in Shabnam Burney effectively gave the executive a free pass to carry out demolitions of any slums it deems to be on 'the Yamuna river bank, river bed and drains flowing into river Yamuna'. 'The authorities are now using this court order as a shield to carry out demolitions,' said Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, an advocate who has also represented slum dwellers. 'They go to the ground and say, 'We are only following the court's directions.'' Indeed, demolitions have been carried out in the Bhoomiheen camp in Kalkaji, Chander Shekhar Azad colony in Wazirpur, Shiv Basti in Patel Nagar and Sanjay Camp in Gokal Puri, even though all of them are part of the list of 675 protected slum list. This trend, of the judiciary providing open sanction to the executive for demolitions, is what legal experts find most alarming. 'The state wants to shun its responsibilities and put the burden on the court,' said Harshit Anand, a Supreme Court advocate who has represented slum dwellers in eviction cases. 'The court, in turn, is becoming more executive-minded than the executive itself.' Mishra described this as 'windshield mentality'. 'A person travelling in a car would always see jhuggi dwellers, street vendors or the homeless as something which is dirtying their view and their roads,' he explained. 'The courts are failing to see that the very people whose homes they are ordering to be demolished are the ones who are servicing the city.' Human cost The consequences of these demolitions are devastating. Families who have lived in these areas for decades, with their livelihoods and social networks deeply embedded in the locality, are suddenly uprooted. In the case of Madrasi Camp, residents are being offered rehabilitation in Narela, nearly 40 kilometres away. 'Most of these people are daily wagers, domestic workers, drivers,' said Rahman. 'How can they travel 40 km every day for work? Their children go to nearby schools. Their entire lives will be disrupted.' Even for those who are deemed eligible for rehabilitation, the process is fraught with uncertainty and hardship. They are often shifted to poorly constructed transit camps or relocated to flats in far-flung areas that lack basic amenities like schools, shops, and transport. The courts, once seen as the last resort for the city's most vulnerable, now seem to be overlooking their plight. 'There has been a shift in the judicial attitude,' said Singh. 'The courts are not inclined to grant relief. They see these people as illegal encroachers.'
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt withholds overseas scholarships due to ‘fund crunch'
The ministry of social justice and empowerment has issued provisional scholarship awards to 40 of the 106 candidates selected for its National Overseas Scholarship (NOS) for the 2025-26 academic year, with a notice saying that letters for the remaining 66 candidates 'may be issued… subject to availability of funds'. The scheme has 125 slots, but the allotment depends on the availability of funds.(Unsplash ) According to the July 1 announcement, the ministry placed 106 candidates on its selected list and 64 on the non-selected list and rejected 270 candidates. '106 candidates have been placed in the Selected list. Out of these, initially, the provisional award letters will be issued to the candidates from serial number 1 to 40,' the ministry said. It received 440 applications for the 2025-26 academic year between March and April. Non-selected means the students have not been considered in the list due to a cap of 10% state and other quotas. These students may be considered in the next list if those selected for provisional scholarships get rejected for failing to provide the required documents. While in previous years, all students in the selected lists received provisional scholarship letters at the same time, this year the ministry has decided to disburse the letters in a phased manner dependent on availability of funds, leaving students in a lurch. Also Read | UP CM Yogi Adityanath assures fee waiver to Class 7 girl, RSS-run school refuses: 'No such provision' 'Provisional award letters to the remaining candidates (from serial number 41 to 106) in the selected list may be issued in due course, subject to availability of funds,' it said. To be sure, the scheme has 125 slots, but the allotment depends on the availability of funds. This means the rejections are not absolute or that the students won't get the scholarships at all. The NOS program, started in 1954-55, provides critical financial support to students from Scheduled Castes (SC), Denotified Nomadic Tribes (DNT), semi-nomadic tribes, landless agricultural labourers, or traditional artisan categories, with a family income under ₹8 lakh per annum. It funds master's or PhD degrees at the top 500 global universities (according to QS rankings), offering up to $16,920 annually for a maximum of three years (master's) or four years (PhD). The scheme nominally provides 125 scholarships annually, capped at 10% per state. The ministry, however, said that the award of scholarships needs approval from the cabinet committee on economic affairs. 'It is an issue with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs not approving the money allocated to these scholarship schemes. We have the money, but we also need the green signal from above to give it out,' an official of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The uncertainty has come despite a significant increase in the budgetary allocation. Also Read | Best emerging courses for science students in 2025: AI, biotechnology and more In the Budget announced in February this year, the government allocated ₹130 crore to NOS for the FY 2025-26 — a 36.84% rise from the ₹95 crore in 2024-25. By December 19, 2024, the ministry had disbursed ₹56.29 crore to 80 beneficiaries for the current academic year. A Delhi-based candidate, ranked outside the top 40 and holding an offer for an MA in economics from a UK-based university, said: 'Without issuing any communication to students before announcing the results, the ministry said it will issue provisional letters to the top 40 students. I am not among the top 40 and will not be able to get the letter even after they issue letters to the next 40 students on the list. I feel stuck and confused about whether I should apply for other scholarships or wait. Even after being selected for the scholarship, I might not be able to study abroad if I do not have enough funds, which will affect my academic career.' Earlier, a similar disruption was reported in the Maulana Azad National Fellowship (MANF) under which over 1,400 PhD scholars have faced stalled stipend payments since January 2025. Similarly, there was confusion over the National Fellowship for Scheduled Castes (NFSC) for June 2024, for which the list was published in April 2025. The National Testing Agency initially released a selection list of 865 scholars in March 2025 and issued award letters, only to publish a revised list in April, drastically reducing selections to 805 and removing 487 previously chosen candidates. Also Read | DU panel clears move to drop papers on Pakistan, China, Islam Opposition leaders, including Congress's Rahul Gandhi, have written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging resolution for various scholarships, but no government response has been reported. 'Post-matric scholarships for students from marginalised communities are plagued by delays and failures. While I have cited examples from Bihar, these failures are widespread across the country,' the letter had said. Experts expressed concerns about the situation. 'On one hand, India is emerging as the world's fourth-largest economy; on the other, it lacks sufficient funds to support just 125 scholars from historically marginalised communities in pursuing overseas education. This reflects the current government's approach to investing in the future of Dalit and Tribal scholars—the nation-builders of tomorrow. Instead of expanding opportunities, the government appears to be reducing funds and scholarships, which is deeply concerning. Our students who have admission offer letters from top foreign universities are worried about their future,' Raju Kendre, founder of Eklavya India Foundation which coaches marginalised students for scholarships, said.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Gujarat Confidential: Cherished memories
Former chief minister Vijay Rupani's family and friends are inviting people to share their cherished memories of the late leader ahead of his birthday on August 2. Memories can be shared in written, audio, or video format via a WhatsApp number. A close family friend of the Rupanis said that they will collect the information till August 2 and then decide if they would publish it as a book format or in a video format or in any other manner. Rupani was killed in the June 12 plane crash in Ahmedabad. Special Reunion The Institute of Leadership and Governance (ILG) at Maharaja Sayajirao University (MSU) of Baroda is hosting an 'offline interactive public lecture', calling it a 'reunion' on Monday, featuring Yeshi Dawa, Senior Researcher at 108 Peace Institute and former bureau chief of Radio Free Asia, who will discuss 'The Dalai Lama at 90: Legacies and the Road Ahead'. 'Established in January 2016 as an autonomous institute in MSU, the ILG has for long organised online lectures, which were also necessitated due to Covid and continued post pandemic too. This being an offline one is the reason we are asking everyone to join for this lecture… also as a 'reunion',' ILG former director and current advisor Jigar Inamdar said.
