New Delhi: The incident of a senior advocate sipping on a beer mug during virtual appearance at the Gujarat High Court has ignited a debate among several members of the bar and bench on whether virtual court hearings should continue or not.
While some say such hearings started out as a necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic but are now being treated as a “luxury”, others point to their benefits, such as making courts more accessible, and suggest strict protocols for the same.
ThePrint spoke to several lawyers, bar association members, senior advocates and former judges of the Supreme Court and high courts to get views on the subject.
The debate started when a clip went viral on social media last month in which senior advocate Bhaskar Tanna appears to be casually sipping beer, dressed in court attire, and attending a court hearing via video-conferencing on 26 June.
Taking cognisance, a two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and R.T. Vachhani, on 1 July initiated contempt proceedings against Tanna for “contemptuous behaviour”, taking note of the wide-reaching ramifications of his act on the judicial system. It noted that behaviour that dents the glory of the system mustn’t go unaddressed, otherwise it could lead to a collapse of institutional authority.
The lawyer subsequently issued an apology to court, saying: “It wasn’t done intentionally. I tender an apology, and came to know about the clip’s circulation, and the court order. I am unconditionally apologising and will accept whatever punishment you seek fit.”
Following his apology, the court the same day said he would be allowed to submit an explanation, in writing, on the next date of hearing and in the meantime would be restrained from appearing virtually.
The bench further said that such conduct by a senior advocate could potentially influence the younger members of the bar, and could also lead to reconsideration of his designation as senior.
Tanna’s was not the lone incident considered inappropriate. Prior to that, another clip of an unnamed litigant apparently sitting on a toilet seat while attending a court hearing virtually had gone viral on social media. The hearing was of 20 June, before a Gujarat HC judge. This clip too highlighted the need for appropriate behaviour in virtual hearings.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur said that while virtual hearings should continue, a protocol should be prepared for the appearance of lawyers and parties in person.
“Until a protocol is prepared, strange things will continue to happen, and if such incidents happen, the admin should log them (such people) out,” he told ThePrint.
Also Read: Legal pedigree not just entrenched in SC. 1 in 3 HC judges related to judges, ex-judges or lawyers
‘Can’t throw baby out with the bath water’
According to former Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Rajiv Shakdher, virtual hearings empower women, and even differently-abled persons to attend court, and contribute to lesser footfall in the court, which eventually helps in crowd control.
“We can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Virtual hearings facilitate adjudication and empower lots of people who don’t have the capacity to carry their counsel from one place to another. They also help when litigants are not located close to the court, or are incapable of coming, due to their circumstances,” he told ThePrint.
Justice Shakdher, who also chaired the Information and Technology Committee in the Madras and Delhi High Courts, was of the view that it’s not a good idea to do away with such hearings altogether.
“Especially after so much money has been invested by the courts in infrastructure, it would be a bad idea. To add to this, the future lies in disputes being resolved through online means, so we would be actually regressing if we do away with them completely,” he said.
Regarding the incidents of impropriety, he said: “Many of them could be unintended, but they should not be the basis for doing away with virtual hearings. Even if these are intentional, or done with a view to scandalise, there are ways to tackle this, like initiating contempt proceedings against the erring parties.”
Underlining the way forward, he suggested that there be a protocol for online hearings which should be publicised in the public domain regularly, in a way that lawyers are cognisant of it.
“Existing protocols should be widely publicised, by printing and circulating or posting them in courts. When the Supreme Court had asked high courts to frame virtual hearing rules, I was part of that committee. I am certain the Gujarat High Court also has one,” he added.
‘Started as necessity, now used as luxury’
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh was of the view that “online hearing was started as a necessity during the pandemic, but is now being used as a luxury”.
Underlining a strong need for regulation, Singh told ThePrint that the facility should only be made available to people on a need-basis.
“I think it’s being misused and court proceedings are being trivialised. Any court proceeding is a very solemn proceeding and requires to be taken seriously. Such incidents are affecting the credibility of the process,” he said.
Advocate Jawahar Lal, too, censured the lack of decorum. “As a lawyer, you are expected to follow the decorum. More than giving respect to the judge, it’s about giving respect to the system, and the judicial set up. If you are not respecting the system, you are demeaning yourself because you are part of the system,” he said.
‘Need regulation’
Several advocates called for enforcement of a strict code of conduct.
Senior advocate Jayna Kothari, who is also co-founder of Centre for Law & Policy Research, told ThePrint that virtual hearings should certainly continue since “they are extremely important for lawyers and litigants” in making the court more accessible.
“There can be guidelines which prescribe a code conduct for lawyers to appear online,” she suggested when asked about the errant behaviour during online hearings.
Echoing a similar sentiment, senior advocate Shashank Garg said: “Virtual hearings are all about access to justice, and are meant to not just benefit advocates but also ensure that clients or litigants, even in the remotest parts of the country, can know what is happening in their case, without having to travel all the way or blindly trust their advocate’s version of things.”
He added that over 70 percent of advocates in the country are barely able to make ends meet, and that virtual hearings for such lawyers are “a boon to increase their work footprint”. However, such technology should be embraced with responsibly, he said.
When asked about the instances where clients or lawyers fail to maintain decorum, Garg said: “We have seen a few incidents which range from innocuous to unacceptable, but the action the court should take in response should be as if the act was done in a physical court hearing.”
Asserting that lawyers are officers of the court, Garg added that “it is our collective responsibility to ensure that our actions do not undermine the dignity of the institution”.
“Virtual hearing is a privilege and can be withdrawn from an advocate who is found guilty of misconduct but that should not impact the overall concept and efficacy of such hearings.”
Advocate Nandan Anand also said that such hearings must continue while adding that they are a manifestation of AI tools “in the realm of judicial and legal work”—which is necessary to keep up with the changing times and technological advancements in various spheres.
“There are three aspects of legal proceedings in any given situation i.e., the courts, the lawyers and the clients. Virtual hearings are a great asset for lawyers, clients as well as for judges and courts for the smooth functioning of the judicial system,” he told ThePrint.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Black coat, My lord, long leaves—How Indian judiciary can be decolonised