Delhi High Court Bars Advocate From Virtual Hearings for Attending Parallel Proceedings

New Delhi – In a stern message underscoring the sanctity of virtual judicial proceedings, the Delhi High Court has barred an advocate from appearing before it via video conferencing after she was found to be attending a parallel hearing. The Court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, took a firm stance on the matter, holding that such conduct is a direct contravention of the recently notified High Court rules governing virtual appearances.

The incident occurred during the hearing of an application for an interim injunction in the commercial suit Mahindra HZPC Private Limited & Ors. v. Shri Ram Farms & Ors. Advocate Renu Arora, representing the first and second defendants, drew the Court's attention when her video feed was abruptly cut off after a query was posed by the bench.

Justice Karia noted the sequence of events in the official order: "...Ms. Renu Arora, learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, initially appeared through Video Conference and when a query was put up by this Court, her video was switched off and she was on mute."

When Ms. Arora reappeared on screen after a period of absence, she admitted to the reason for her disappearance. The order records her explanation: "After some time, she again appeared through the Video Conference and submitted that a parallel hearing was going on so she had put this Court on mute and the video was also switched off."

This admission proved to be a critical misstep. Justice Karia immediately identified the conduct as a violation of the High Court's procedural framework for virtual hearings. The Court concluded that this act undermined the decorum and seriousness of the proceedings, leading to a direct and unequivocal sanction.

"This conduct of the learned Counsel is contrary to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 of the High Court of Delhi," the order stated. "Accordingly, Ms. Renu Arora, Advocate is barred to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing henceforth."

This order serves as a significant precedent, highlighting the judiciary's increasing intolerance for casual or divided attention from legal professionals during virtual hearings, which have become a mainstay of the justice delivery system.

---

The New Mandate: The 2025 Video Conferencing Rules

The Court's decision is anchored in the "Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025," which were notified by the Delhi High Court on July 4th. These comprehensive rules were formulated to standardize virtual court practices and align them with the new criminal law framework, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The 2025 Rules are not merely technical guidelines; they codify the etiquette and professional responsibility expected of all participants. Key provisions mandate that participants must: * Be situated in a quiet, undisturbed location. * Maintain a secure and stable internet connection to avoid disruptions. * Uphold the decorum of the court, which includes refraining from engaging in other activities, such as parallel work or hearings.

The action taken against Ms. Arora is one of the first prominent instances of these new rules being enforced with such a definitive penalty. It sends a clear signal to the legal fraternity that the virtual courtroom demands the same level of respect, attention, and professional conduct as a physical one. Legal experts suggest this ruling will compel advocates to be more circumspect about their scheduling and to treat each virtual appearance with the undivided focus it requires.

---

The Underlying Intellectual Property Dispute

While the procedural ruling has captured significant attention, the substantive matter of the case involves a crucial intellectual property dispute in the agricultural sector. The plaintiff, Mahindra HZPC Private Limited, a major player in the seed potato industry, filed a suit seeking an interim injunction against Shri Ram Farms and others.

Mahindra alleged that the defendants were infringing upon its registered plant variety, "Colomba," a popular potato strain. The suit claims that the defendants were producing, marketing, and selling a potato variety under the name 'SRF-C51', which was presented as being identical to "Colomba".

The plaintiff’s counsel, led by Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, argued that this constituted a clear violation of their rights under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. The court had previously ordered a scientific analysis of potato crop samples from both parties. The results, submitted in a sealed envelope, reportedly indicated that the defendants' samples were either from the same cultivator or shared common parental lines with Mahindra's registered variety.

Furthermore, the defendants were accused of using a YouTube video to illegally promote 'SRF-C51' by directly comparing it to the "Colomba" variety, thereby leveraging the plaintiff's established market reputation.

---

Court Grants Ad-Interim Injunction

After reviewing the evidence and hearing the arguments, Justice Karia concluded that the plaintiff had successfully established a strong basis for immediate relief.

"A prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the Plaintiff for grant of an ad-interim injunction," the Court observed. It further noted that the "balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants" and that "irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ad-interim injunction is not granted."

Consequently, the Court passed a comprehensive ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from: * Producing, selling, marketing, distributing, or in any way commercializing the potato variety 'SRF-C51' or any other product that infringes upon the "Colomba" plant variety. * The Court also specifically directed Defendants No. 1 and 2 to take down the contentious YouTube video that promoted their product as being identical to "Colomba".

The matter has been scheduled for its next hearing on January 19, 2026, where the injunction and the larger infringement claims will be further adjudicated. The barring of Ms. Arora from future VC appearances, however, stands as an immediate and cautionary tale for legal practitioners navigating the evolving landscape of digital jurisprudence.