IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the integrity of court proceedings requires accurate representation of advocate presence, limiting online presence marking to those actively participating in hearings.

ORDER :

CONMT.PET.(C) No. 2199/2018 in C.A. No. 2703/2017

1. During the course of hearing, on being asked as to who is appearing for the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Nilamber and Pitamber University, i.e., respondent nos. 4 and 5, it is informed by Mr. Samant Singh, Advocate, that Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate on Record, is representing them. He made a request to accommodate him because he is out of town and not available.

2. This batch of contempt petitions is part-heard from previous date and hearing is continuing since yesterday (28.08.2024). We asked the Court Master to find out as to whether Mr. Rajeev Singh is connected to Court proceedings through video conferencing or not. On checking, it reveals that Mr. Rajeev Singh is not connected online, however, his name was submitted through online portal to mark his presence in the proceedings.

3. In our view, without his presence in Court in person or appearance through VC, submission of online appearance is completely unfair, especially when he is not in Court and not even in town. On further query, it is informed that there are more counsels representing the parties, who are neither present physically before this Court nor joined through video conferencing.

4. We have perused circular of the Supreme Court Registry dated 30th December, 2022 by which a portal for online appearance was activated w.e.f. 02.01.2023. In terms of the said circular, the Advocates-on-Record are permitted to mark appearances of the “advocates appearing in court.” Meaning thereby, such instruction casts onerous responsibility on the Advocates-on-Record to furnish information of the advocate appearing online or physically in the case. Apparently, it would mean that the advocate who is either present in the case or assisting them in the Court, the presence of only those is to be marked. It would not mean that the advocate, who is neither present personally nor online, may be allowed to mark his presence by furnishing online information. We cannot loose sight of the fact that furnishing such information may have bearing on the sanctity of the Court proceedings in the case.

5. We may hasten to observe that on the basis of the presence of the counsel in the proceedings, the advocates may be entitled to get certain benefits such as allotment of chamber, designation of senior advocates and other. In the long run, if the advocates, who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly. Therefore, for sanctity of the proceedings and for betterment of the Institution, online information ought to be submitted of only those advocates who are either appearing or assisting during hearing, personally or online.

6. In view of aforesaid, we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.

7. As observed, we request the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates as indicated, and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit. We also request the Presidents of respective Bar Associations of the Supreme Court to look into the issue and notify the members for taking corrective steps.

8. A copy of this order be sent to the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association for information and acknowledgment.

9. Heard.

10. Reserved for orders.