Indian High Courts Uphold Professional Standards in Law and Journalism, Scrutinize Virtual Courtroom Decorum

NEW DELHI/CHENNAI – In a series of significant pronouncements, High Courts across India have recently turned a critical eye towards the conduct of legal professionals and the media, reinforcing the standards of decorum, ethics, and responsibility expected within the justice system. The Delhi High Court strongly deprecated the casual approach of lawyers appearing in virtual hearings from moving vehicles, while also cautioning the media against sensationalizing judicial remarks. Concurrently, the Madras High Court delivered a wide array of judgments touching upon arbitration, criminal law, and fundamental rights, reflecting the judiciary's active role in shaping legal and social norms.

These developments underscore a pivotal moment for the Indian legal landscape, as courts grapple with the intersection of technology, professional conduct, and public perception in the modern era.

---

Delhi High Court Demands Decorum in Virtual Proceedings

The shift to virtual courtrooms, accelerated by the global pandemic, has introduced new challenges to maintaining the solemnity of judicial proceedings. The Delhi High Court recently addressed one such challenge head-on, expressing strong disapproval of lawyers attending hearings while on the move.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela admonished the practice after a lawyer's appearance from a moving vehicle resulted in a broken connection, disrupting the proceedings and wasting valuable judicial time. The lawyer was only able to convey that she had filed her vakalatnama before her connection failed.

In its order dated November 3, 2025, the Bench noted that this was a persistent issue despite "several reminders to the members of the Bar." The court articulated the broader implications of such conduct, stating, “Such mode of appearance before the Court not only causes inconvenience to the proceedings of the Court, but in fact results in sheer wastage of judicial time. It also ultimately hampers the right to access to justice, which cannot be the purpose of the Courts walking in tune with the technological developments.”

While the court recorded the incident in its order, it refrained from passing adverse directions. The lawyer subsequently appeared in person to offer a sincere apology. The Bench used the moment as a teaching opportunity, reminding her of the crucial role advocates play in upholding the sanctity of the institution. “Dignity of the court is dependent on you," the Bench remarked. "You should be conscious of the dignity, if not of the court, but at least of the law as a profession. This is what disturbed us.”

This incident serves as a critical reminder for legal practitioners that the convenience of technology does not dilute the professional obligations of decorum and preparedness owed to the court.

"Disturbing Trend": Court Flags Sensationalist Media Reporting

In a separate but equally significant matter, the Delhi High Court addressed the growing trend of media sensationalism in court reporting. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in the case of Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement , flagged the "disturbing trend" of reporting innocuous, off-the-cuff remarks made by judges during hearings to create sensational narratives.

The issue arose after several media outlets misreported a general comment by the court about repeated adjournments as a specific admonishment of Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa. Pahwa filed an application seeking action against the reports, clarifying that no such statement was directed at him or recorded in the judicial order.

Justice Krishna observed that such reporting distorts the public's understanding of judicial proceedings. “It has become a disturbing trend in recent times to report even some most innocuous remark that may be made by the Court during the case hearings... merely to create sensation,” the Court stated. It emphasized that media houses have an "absolute responsibility for accuracy and fairness," especially since the general public, including some legal professionals, rely on these reports.

The Court noted that falsely attributing the remark to Pahwa was "not only incorrect but is essentially designed to create a sensational news story." While stopping short of issuing specific directions, Justice Krishna left it to the news organizations to self-regulate, stating, "no guidance from any Court is required as to what is germane to the court proceeding that may be reported and that which is of no consequence." This judgment highlights the delicate balance between freedom of the press and the need for responsible journalism that accurately reflects the substance of judicial proceedings.

---

Madras High Court Delivers Key Rulings on Arbitration, Criminal Justice, and Fundamental Rights

The Madras High Court has been particularly active, issuing a series of impactful judgments across various legal domains that offer crucial guidance to practitioners.

Arbitration Law Clarified: The court delivered several key rulings on arbitration law. In one case, it held that a party that deliberately refuses to participate in arbitral proceedings cannot later use its non-participation as a ground to resist the enforcement of the award ( M/s Vittera B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills ). In another, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh reiterated that principles of natural justice are "non-negotiable," even when the tribunal consists of laypersons, and set aside an award passed without giving a party an opportunity to be heard ( M. Maher Dadha v. Mr. S. Mohanchand Dadha ). The court also ruled that a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed with a deficit court fee is considered non-est unless the deficit is paid within the prescribed limitation period ( M. Gajendran & Anr. v. R. Munirathinam & Ors. ).

Protecting Individual Liberties and Rights: The court demonstrated its commitment to protecting individual rights in several notable cases.

* In a powerful move to ensure accountability, Justice KK Ramakrishnan directed three police officers to pay ₹10 Lakh in compensation to a man they framed in a false drug case, emphasizing that a fair investigation is a fundamental right ( A Vignesh v. State ).

* The court also clarified the definition of "Ganja" under the NDPS Act, holding that it includes only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, not the stem and stalk. This interpretation has significant implications for determining commercial quantity and sentencing ( Ganesan v. The State ).

* In P. Pushpam v/s The Director, UIDAI , Justice GR Swaminathan affirmed that an Aadhaar card holder has a fundamental right to seek alteration of their name and other details, underscoring the statutory rights conferred by the Aadhaar Act.

Judicial Scrutiny of State and Central Action: The Madras High Court also weighed in on major policy and administrative matters. It dismissed a challenge to the Union Government's decision to convert Ordnance Factory Board units into seven Defence Public Sector Units, holding that national security policies cannot be stalled on "hyper-technical objections" ( All India Defence Employees Federation v. Government of India ).

Furthermore, in a series of pending matters, the court is examining critical questions, including whether a central law can be challenged for an alleged lack of parliamentary discussion (regarding the new criminal laws) and whether the Enforcement Directorate can direct state police to register an FIR for a predicate offence.

These diverse rulings from the High Courts of Delhi and Madras reflect a judiciary that is actively engaged in safeguarding institutional integrity, clarifying complex legal principles, and adapting to the evolving challenges of modern society. For legal professionals, these judgments offer not just legal precedent but also crucial guidance on professional ethics, conduct, and their role in the broader ecosystem of justice.