Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Supreme Court Tightens Rules on Virtual Attendance for Advocates: 'Sanctity of Court Proceedings Must Be Preserved'

03 September 2024 3:43 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court Warns Against Misuse of Online Appearance Portal, Highlights Impact on Legal Profession's Integrity. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for strict adherence to rules governing virtual court appearances by advocates. The bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, highlighted concerns over the misuse of the online appearance portal, stressing that only those advocates who are actively participating in court proceedings, either in person or via video conferencing, should mark their presence. The judgment underscores the court's commitment to maintaining the integrity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

The matter arose during the hearing of a series of contempt petitions linked to a civil appeal (C.A. No. 2703/2017). During the proceedings, it was revealed that certain advocates had marked their presence online despite neither being physically present in court nor participating via video conferencing. This practice was found to be in violation of the court’s guidelines issued in a circular dated December 30, 2022, which allowed advocates to mark their online presence but required that they actually be involved in the court proceedings.

The court expressed serious concerns over the misuse of the online appearance system. It was noted that the presence of advocates in court is often linked to professional benefits such as chamber allotments and senior designations. Permitting advocates to mark their presence without actual participation could unjustly influence these benefits, undermining the fairness of the legal profession. The court stated, "Furnishing such information may have bearing on the sanctity of the court proceedings in the case."

The judgment delved into the broader implications of such practices on the legal profession. The court observed that this misuse could adversely affect those advocates who regularly appear in court and diligently fulfill their professional responsibilities. "If advocates who are not present in court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have an adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly," the court remarked.

The bench emphasized that the responsibility lies with the Advocates-on-Record (AOR) to ensure that the information submitted about the presence of advocates is accurate and truthful. The judgment clarified that the online appearance portal should be used strictly in accordance with the rules set forth, and any deviation from these rules could erode the sanctity of the court’s proceedings.

In its ruling, the court stated, "For the sanctity of the proceedings and for the 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."

The Supreme Court's decision serves as a stern reminder of the importance of integrity and professionalism within the legal community. By tightening the rules on virtual appearances, the court aims to preserve the sanctity of its proceedings and ensure that the legal profession operates with fairness and transparency. The judgment is expected to lead to stricter enforcement of attendance rules and may prompt other courts to adopt similar measures to safeguard their proceedings.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2024

BAIDYA NATH CHOUDHARY VS DR. SREE SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH

Latest Legal News