Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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