The Delhi High Court on January 30 raised concerns over the lack of decorum in virtual court proceedings, emphasizing the need for lawyers to adhere to proper court etiquette.

The Court urged the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to take steps to sensitize advocates on maintaining professional conduct during virtual hearings.

The issue came to light when an advocate attempted to represent appellants in a case while standing in a park and using a mobile phone.

Taking note of this, Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia stressed that while videoconferencing is meant to facilitate lawyers handling cases across multiple courts in Delhi, it does not absolve them from maintaining decorum.

The Court observed that despite repeated instructions in the daily cause list, many lawyers fail to follow proper protocol. Connectivity issues often render counsel inaudible, and in some cases, advocates fail to turn on their video, the Court noted.

"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. The hybrid courts also are courts only. Even in the daily cause list of this Court, specific directions to maintain decorum while appearing through videoconferencing are circulated every day. But to no avail," Justice Kathpalia remarked.

During the dictation of the order, the concerned advocate turned off his video, prompting the Court to refuse to record his appearance. However, to avoid penalizing the litigant for their lawyer’s actions, the Court refrained from dismissing the appeal.

"...Although that can call for dismissal of the appeal in default, but doing so would cause harm to the litigant who is not at fault. As such, I have examined the record," the Court stated.

The case in question involved a dispute over a ₹5 lakh loan, where the appellants admitted to receiving the amount via cheque but claimed it was a repayment for a previous cash loan given to the respondent. The Court, however, found no credible evidence to support the claim of a prior cash transaction and questioned the rationale behind repaying a cash loan through a cheque.

"Prima facie, there is no reliable evidence of the alleged cash loan given by the appellants to the respondent. One also fails to understand as to why a cash loan would be paid back through cheque," the Court noted.

The respondent’s counsel accepted notice, and the matter was scheduled for its next hearing on July 22. The Court clarified that there was no stay on the operation of the judgment.

Additionally, the Registry was directed to circulate relevant portions of the order to the Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations, emphasizing the need for lawyers to maintain decorum in hybrid court proceedings.

Advocate Shivam Goel appeared for the respondent.