The Virtual Gavel: Delhi High Court Issues Directives on Hybrid Hearing Decorum

In a stern message directed at the legal fraternity, the Delhi High Court has underscored that the transition to hybrid court proceedings does not grant a waiver on professional standards. In a recent order, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of an advocate appearing via videoconferencing, who was observed in a public park while his video feed was switched off.

A Breach of Courtroom Etiquette

The incident occurred during the hearing of an appeal involving a money recovery suit. As the court took up the matter, it noted that an advocate was attempting to appear via video link while standing in a park. The situation deteriorated as the counsel switched off his video during the dictation of the order, prompting the Court to refuse to acknowledge his appearance.

While the Court acknowledged the immense utility of hybrid hearings—which allow practitioners to attend multiple courts across the city efficiently—it maintained that such convenience must be balanced with the gravity of judicial proceedings. "Hybrid courts also are courts only," Justice Kathpalia noted, emphasizing that the physical environment of an advocate does not absolve them of their duty to maintain professional decorum.

The Underlying Legal Dispute

Beyond the procedural friction, the case involves a dispute over a Rs 5,00,000 money recovery suit. The Appellants, Shobha Verma and another, had received a cheque from the Respondent, Ashok Kapoor. While the Appellants admitted to receiving the funds, they alleged that the payment was a discharge of an earlier cash loan they had provided to the Respondent.

The Court questioned the logic of this defense, noting that there was no reliable evidence to substantiate the alleged cash transaction. Furthermore, the judge observed the inherent anomaly in a scenario where a purported cash debt is repaid via cheque. As the decree remains unchallenged, the Court has relisted the matter to allow the Appellants to address the sustainability of their claim.

Key Observations

• On the necessity of virtual presence: "It has been repeatedly observed in a number of cases that appearance through videoconferencing must be encouraged... But for that, the counsel has to understand that the decorum of the court must be kept in mind."
• On the visibility of counsel: "Quite often, on account of connectivity issues at the end of counsel appearing through videoconferencing the counsel remains inaudible. Often, the video is not switched on."
• On the limits of professional patience: "In the course of dictation of this order, the said advocate appearing today has switched off his video. In these circumstances, I am not marking appearance of that Advocate as a counsel in the present case."

Impact and Future Directions

Seeking to prevent further lapses in courtroom etiquette, the High Court directed the Registry to extract its observations and disseminate them to the Delhi High Court Bar Association and all District Bar Associations. The objective is to sensitize members of the Bar regarding the expectations of appearance in hybrid courts.

The Court’s decision to continue with the case—rather than dismissing it in default—prioritizes the interests of the litigants, who were not at fault for their counsel’s lapse in conduct. This case serves as a poignant reminder that while technology has bridged the distance between the office and the bench, the sanctity of the courtroom remains an immutable standard.