Lawyer Not Wearing Neck-Band During Virtual Hearing: Orissa High Court Imposes Rs. 500 Fine To 'Restore Dignity Of The Profession'

While imposing the penalty, the Bench of Justice S. K. Panigrahi observed,

"The profession is solemn in nature and its profundity is complemented by its attire. Being an Advocate, he is expected to appear before the Court in a dignified manner with proper dress, even if it is a virtual mode."

Significantly, during the course of hearing (in a Bail Matter), the Court observed that the counsel for the informant was not wearing neckband at the time of argument.

The Court further noted that the lawyers' dress code is governed by the rules prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961, making it mandatory for lawyers to wear a black robe or coat with white shirt and white neckband.

It was also remarked by the Court that the Rule framed under Section 49 (1) (gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961 prescribes the dress code for Advocates irrespective of designated Senior Advocates or other Advocates.

Noting that the counsel has violated the dress code prescribed under the Advocates Act, the Court remarked,

"The etiquette, courtier and attire are subtle indicators of erudition and professionalism especially for lawyers and this strongly influences people's perception on the profession. The profession is solemn in nature and its profundity is complemented by its attire."

"The Court is duty-bound to restore the dignity of the profession including the prescribed dress code," the Court also opined.

In view of the above, the counsel for the informant was directed to deposit an amount of ₹500 as cost with the Welfare Fund of High Court Bar Association by the next date.

Other related orders

While noting that a Lawyer appeared for a virtual hearing from a stationed car and "in a casual manner", the Madras High Court on Wednesday (03rd February) expressed its displeasure at Lawyer's conduct.

"The learned counsel for the petitioner, by sitting in a stationed car in a casual manner, representing the case, which is impermissible in view of the Video-Conferencing Rules notified by the High Court," said the Court.

Further, as reported by the PTI, the Delhi High Court on Thursday (04^th February) said that it is "simply shocking" that advocates are arguing or attending matters through video-conferencing while being on "roads, sitting in parks and even running up on stairs", making it difficult for the court to conduct proceedings as are not audible properly.

In November 2020, the Presiding Officer DRT-I Ahmedabad, Vinay Goel had imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 upon an Advocate Vishal Gori who attended the virtual hearing while sitting inside his Car.

Inter Alia, there have been incidents where Advocates appear for a virtual court in inappropriate dresses.

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (23^rd September), while taking up a Criminal Misc. Application noticed that applicant-accused No. 1, Ajit Kubhabhai Gohil, who was present before the Court through video conferencing, was spitting openly.

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."

Further, the Court directed the applicant-accused No. 1 to deposit a cost of Rs. 500/- before the Registry of this High Court on or before the next date of hearing, failing which the matter shall not be taken up for hearing.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court 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

In the month of June, 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.

Recently, 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 future.

Click HereTo Download Order

[Read Order]