Delhi HC Bars Lawyer from Online Hearings for Rule Breach

Delhi High Court Bars Lawyer from Online Hearings After Violating New Video Conferencing Rules

Court says switching off video and muting during proceedings goes against 2025 VC Rules

Judges stress on discipline, decorum, and fairness in virtual hearings under new legal framework

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 24, 2025: The Delhi High Court has barred a lawyer from appearing before it through video conferencing (VC) after she switched off her camera and muted herself during a hearing, citing a parallel case she was attending. The court ruled that such conduct violated the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which were notified earlier this year to regulate online court proceedings.

Justice Tejas Karia, who passed the order, said the lawyer’s actions were “contrary to the rules” and undermined the seriousness of judicial proceedings. The decision has sparked a wider debate on the etiquette, discipline, and challenges of virtual courts in India.

The Case in Question

The matter arose during a commercial civil suit filed by Mahindra HZPC Private Limited against Shri Ram Farms and others. Mahindra sought to restrain the defendants from producing or selling a potato variety called SRF-C51, which it claimed infringed its registered plant variety ‘Colomba’.

During the hearing, the lawyer representing defendants 1 and 2 initially joined via video conference. However, when the judge posed a query, she switched off her camera and muted her microphone. After some time, she rejoined and explained that she had muted the court because she was attending another hearing simultaneously.

The court found this behaviour unacceptable, noting that it violated the VC Rules, 2025, which require participants to remain visible, attentive, and respectful throughout proceedings.

The Court’s Observations

Justice Karia observed:

Lawyers must treat virtual hearings with the same seriousness as physical courtrooms.
Switching off video or muting without permission disrupts proceedings and shows disregard for the court.
The VC Rules, 2025, clearly prohibit participants from engaging in parallel activities during hearings.

The court concluded that the lawyer’s conduct was “contrary to the dignity of the court” and barred her from appearing through video conferencing in future hearings before that bench.

What the VC Rules, 2025 Say

The Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, notified on July 4, 2025, were designed to standardize the use of technology in courts. They align with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which modernized India’s criminal and evidence laws.

Key provisions of the rules include:

Participants must keep their video on and remain visible throughout the hearing.
Lawyers and litigants must be in a quiet, professional environment with stable internet.
No parallel activities, distractions, or offensive behaviour are allowed.
All participants must maintain decorum and respect, as in physical courts.
Judges have the authority to bar participants who violate the rules.

The rules were introduced after years of experience with virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts across India shifted online.

Wider Implications for the Legal System

The Delhi High Court’s order is significant because it sets a precedent for strict enforcement of VC rules. Legal experts say this ruling sends a strong message that virtual courts are not casual spaces but extensions of the courtroom.

For lawyers: The order is a reminder that multitasking during hearings is unacceptable.
For litigants: It reassures them that online hearings will be conducted with fairness and seriousness.
For the judiciary: It strengthens the credibility of virtual courts, which are expected to play a bigger role in the future.

The Potato Variety Dispute

While the focus of the order was on the lawyer’s conduct, the underlying case also saw important developments.

The court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Mahindra, restraining the defendants from producing or selling the disputed potato variety.
It also directed the defendants to take down a YouTube video promoting their product, which the court found to be infringing Mahindra’s registered plant variety.
The matter has been posted for further hearing in January 2026.

This shows how intellectual property disputes in agriculture are increasingly reaching Indian courts, with technology (like VC hearings) playing a central role in their resolution.

Reactions from the Legal Community

The order has triggered discussions among lawyers and legal scholars.

Supporters argue that the court was right to enforce discipline, as laxity in virtual hearings undermines justice.
Critics caution that barring a lawyer from VC hearings could disadvantage clients, especially in cases where physical presence is difficult.
Technology experts say the ruling highlights the need for better digital infrastructure and training for lawyers.

The Future of Virtual Courts in India

India’s judiciary has embraced technology in recent years, with the Supreme Court and several High Courts conducting hybrid hearings. The VC Rules, 2025, are part of a broader push to make courts more accessible and efficient.

Advantages of virtual courts:

Save time and travel costs for lawyers and litigants.
Allow participation from remote areas.
Speed up hearings in routine matters.

Challenges:

Unequal access to technology and internet.
Risk of distractions and lack of seriousness.
Concerns about data security and privacy.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling shows that while technology is here to stay, discipline and decorum cannot be compromised.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to bar a lawyer from online hearings for violating the VC Rules, 2025, is a landmark moment in India’s transition to digital justice. It underscores that virtual courts are real courts, and participants must uphold the same standards of respect and professionalism.

As India modernizes its legal system under the BNSS, 2023, and related reforms, this ruling will likely serve as a guiding precedent for other courts. It also highlights the judiciary’s determination to ensure that technology enhances — rather than undermines — the delivery of justice.