- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- "Follow Dress Code, Etiquettes &...
"Follow Dress Code, Etiquettes & Mannerism": Bombay HC Defers Final Hearing As Counsel Assisting Sr. Advocate Wasn't In 'Advocate's Uniform'
Sparsh Upadhyay
3 July 2021 5:04 PM IST
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently deferred the final hearing in a matter noting that the counsel for the petitioner, assisting the Senior Advocate though visible on screen but, was not wearing Advocates' Uniform.The Bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil S. Kilor remarked thus:"Shri Abdul Subhan shall do well to follow the dress code, etiquettes and mannerism and till...
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently deferred the final hearing in a matter noting that the counsel for the petitioner, assisting the Senior Advocate though visible on screen but, was not wearing Advocates' Uniform.
The Bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil S. Kilor remarked thus:
"Shri Abdul Subhan shall do well to follow the dress code, etiquettes and mannerism and till he follows the same, the final hearing of this petition is deferred."
On the day of this incident, the petition was fixed for the final hearing and also for the hearing of a Civil Application, when the Court noted Abdul Subhan, the Counsel for the petitioner, assisting the Senior Advocate though visible on screen but, he was not wearing Advocates' Uniform.
The Senior Advocate, Anil Mardikar submitted that he had already reprimanded the Advocate. But regrettably, he continued to appear on the screen without Advocate's uniform.
In related news, the Allahabad High Court has directed the office bearers of the Bar Associations of the High Court to advise their members, not to adopt any casual approach while appearing before this Court through virtual mode which may cause hurdles in the administration of justice.
The Patna High Court recently refused to take notice of the appearance of the learned APP in a criminal matter as he was not attired in proper uniform.
The Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad said that the Court "could not take notice" of APP's appearance as he was not in proper uniform.
The Allahabad High Court last week declined to hear an advocate appearing in a matter as he was riding a scooter while appearing before the Court through Video Conferencing mode.
The Orissa High Court in February this year imposed Rs. 500 fine on an advocate who was not wearing a Neck Band while arguing before the Court in virtual mode.
Deprecating such conduct of the accused, the Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia had said,
"This Court is not inclined to take up the matter today looking to the conduct of the applicant-accused No. 1."
The Karnataka High Court once slammed an advocate who was participating in the video conference proceedings while sitting inside a car.
"Though due to extraordinary reasons, we are forced to hear matters through video conferencing hearing. We hope and trust members of the bar will follow the minimum decorum.", a division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said
Last year, the Supreme Court had accepted the apology of an advocate who had made an appearance before the Court, whilst lying on the bed dressed in a T-shirt, and emphasized on the need to maintain minimum court etiquette during court video hearings.
Rajasthan High Court once adjourned a Bail plea on account of inappropriately dressed counsel in a "baniyan" (undervest) during the Video conference hearing.
Also, the Orissa High Court condemned the practice of lawyers arguing cases through VC from inside vehicles, gardens & while eating etc.
Furthermore, Calcutta High Court had initiated suo motu contempt action against an advocate-on-record for posting on 'LinkedIn' a screenshot of the virtual court hearing of the day when a favorable interim order was passed by the Single Judge while calling for affidavits.
It was observed by the Calcutta High Court that taking a screenshot of the virtual court proceedings is akin to clicking a photograph of an actual court proceeding. However, the contempt proceedings were later dropped with a warning to the lawyer not to repeat such conduct in the future.
Read Order
