The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on an advocate representing the petitioner in a pending matter, after the counsel participated in the virtual hearing while walking in a garden with an unstable internet connection. Justice Om Prakash Shukla, presiding over the proceedings, held that the advocate’s conduct directly contravened the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which prescribe the standards for remote appearances before the court.

The order, passed during a recent hearing, directed the advocate to deposit the penalty amount with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week. Additionally, the court mandated that the counsel must appear physically in court on the next date of hearing, scheduled for November 4. The ruling serves as a sharp reminder to the legal fraternity that the convenience of virtual hearings does not dilute the professional obligations of advocates.

A Garden Walk That Cost ₹10,000

According to the court’s order, the advocate appeared while walking in a garden, and the audio‑video connection was notably poor. Justice Shukla observed that this behavior was in clear violation of the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which the Delhi High Court had framed to ensure the dignity and efficacy of online proceedings. The relevant portion of the order reads: “Learned Counsel is appearing in this matter while walking in the garden and the connection is also not proper. This is in violation of the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 of this Court. Accordingly, costs of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the learned counsel for the petitioner, to be deposited before the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a week from today.”

The court’s emphasis on strict compliance comes at a time when hybrid hearings have become the norm in many Indian courts. The Rules, notified in early 2025, lay down detailed protocols for advocates, including requirements for a stable internet connection, appropriate background, and undivided attention during proceedings. The objective is to ensure that virtual hearings maintain the same level of formality and efficiency as in‑person appearances.

Strict Adherence to Virtual Hearing Protocols

The Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, were introduced by the Delhi High Court to codify the practices that had evolved during the pandemic and beyond. They require advocates to ensure that their devices are charged, that they are in a quiet environment, and that they are able to hear and be heard without disruption. Walking during a hearing, especially in an outdoor setting, is considered a breach of the decorum expected of a court officer.

Legal experts note that this is not the first instance where a court has taken a dim view of casual behavior during virtual proceedings. Several high courts have previously reprimanded advocates for appearing from inappropriate locations or for failing to maintain professionalism. The imposition of costs in this case signals that the Delhi High Court is willing to enforce its rules with tangible financial consequences.

The court also directed the advocate to appear in person on November 4, reinforcing the message that a virtual appearance is a privilege, not a right, and that non‑compliance can lead to the revocation of that privilege for a particular hearing. This approach aligns with the courts’ broader efforts to balance the convenience of technology with the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The Cost of Professional Misconduct

The ₹10,000 cost is to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, which uses such funds to provide legal aid to underprivileged litigants. This dual effect—penalizing the errant professional while supporting access to justice—is a common feature of costs orders in Indian courts.

For the practicing bar, the ruling serves as a cautionary tale. With virtual hearings likely to remain a permanent fixture, advocates must treat online appearances with the same seriousness as physical appearances. The Delhi High Court’s Rules require counsel to log in from a fixed location, maintain a neutral background, and remain attentive throughout the hearing. A walk in the garden, however pleasant, does not meet that standard.

The court’s observation that the connection was “not proper” also underscores the technical responsibility of advocates. It is not enough to merely join a video link; the quality of the link must be sufficient for the judge and opposing counsel to see and hear clearly. A poor connection disrupts proceedings and wastes judicial time, which the court is increasingly reluctant to tolerate.

Next Steps and Wider Implications

The advocate now has one week to deposit the costs. Failure to do so could invite further action, including the dismissal of the petition or additional penalties. The November 4 hearing will be conducted physically, and the court has made it clear that the advocate must be present in person.

This development comes days after the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the importance of its Video Conferencing Rules in several other matters, indicating a zero‑tolerance policy for violations. The legal community is advised to familiarize itself with the specific provisions of the Rules and to ensure that all support staff and junior colleagues are equally aware of the standards.

For the broader legal ecosystem, the case highlights the evolving nature of court etiquette in the digital age. As virtual hearings become entrenched, courts are expected to continue refining their rules and enforcing compliance through costs and other sanctions. The message from Justice Om Prakash Shukla is unambiguous: advocates must adapt their conduct to the new norms, or face consequences.