Back
Virtual Courtroom Clash: Punjab & Haryana HC Targets Advocate with Contempt Notice Over Dramatic Interruption
In a striking assertion of judicial authority, the has issued a for against advocate . The bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda acted swiftly during an appeal hearing in Vinod Kumar vs. and Others (CM-2741-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-495-2024), where Mukhi—appearing virtually for the appellant—allegedly derailed proceedings by challenging the court mid-dictation.
Order Dictation Turns Tense
The underlying appeal involved Vinod Kumar challenging actions by the and other respondents. Arguments had concluded, and the court was openly dictating its order on . That's when tension erupted. Mukhi, connected via video conferencing, began objecting vocally. As detailed in news reports mirroring the order, even counsel for respondents 4 to 6—represented by —witnessed the disruption and urged the court to disconnect the virtual link.
This wasn't a quiet murmur; it unfolded in , despite the virtual mode, underscoring the court's emphasis on decorum regardless of format.
Advocate's Actions Under Fire
The court documented Mukhi's conduct with precision: he disputed the emerging ruling, claimed "injustice" to his client, and threatened a review petition. Such interruptions, the bench noted, tampered with the . , was present, but the focus zeroed in on the advocate's breach.
No full-fledged arguments on the appeal's merits were revisited here—this order pivoted entirely to preserving court sanctity.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning
Drawing directly from —which targets acts scandalizing or lowering court authority, or interfering with proceedings—the bench deemed Mukhi's behavior willful and intentional. No precedents were invoked, but the ruling reinforces core tenets of courtroom discipline, especially in hybrid virtual-physical settings post-pandemic.
The integration of virtual hearings demands unwavering respect, the court implied, treating disruptions as equivalent to in-person affronts.
Key Observations
-
"While Court was dictating the order, Mr. , Advocate, who is appearing on behalf of the appellant through virtual mode started disrupting proceeding and to prevent the court from dictating the order and stated the view being taken by the Court is not correct."
-
"He started making comments that injustice is being done to his client. Even, the Court was threatened that he will file a review. The conduct of the counsel is such that it was interfering in the ."
-
"This all happened in the though, Mr. , Advocate was appearing through virtual hearing."
-
"Let notice be issued to Mr. , Advocate by the Registry of this Court to show cause as to why, the proceedings under should not be initiated against him for intentionally and willfully making the allegations upon the Court so as to lower the authority of the Court and also to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceedings."
Mandate and Ripple Effects
Mukhi must appear in person on , though he may bring counsel. The registry will serve notice as per law. This interim order halts potential escalation pending response but signals zero tolerance for mid-proceeding advocacy theatrics.
For advocates, it's a reminder: passion for clients can't override judicial protocol, particularly virtually where cues are muted. Future cases may cite this to curb similar outbursts, fortifying hybrid courtrooms' integrity.
