Gujarat HC Objects To Lawyers Not Wearing Gown On VC, Says Dress Code Mandatory For Virtual Appearances Too
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom lately expressed sturdy disapproval of legal professionals showing for hearings through video conferencing with out carrying the prescribed robe.
A bench of Justice MK Thakker noticed that sustaining courtroom decorum and adhering to the skilled costume code is obligatory for the legal professionals even when they’re showing just about.
The Courtroom emphasised that digital presence is equal to bodily presence within the courtroom and should be handled with the identical degree of ritual.
On this regard, the Courtroom referred to the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom Guidelines, 1993, the Bar Council of India Guidelines, the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom Guidelines for Video Conferencing, and the Revised Customary Working Process (SOP) for hybrid hearings issued by way of a round in February 2024.
These provisions, the Courtroom famous, uniformly require advocates to look in correct skilled apparel no matter their mode of look.
Importantly, the bench, in its order, made it clear that if an advocate seems in improper costume throughout a digital listening to, his proper of viewers can be withdrawn.
To make sure compliance with its order, the Courtroom directed the Registrar Basic to put the matter earlier than the Chief Justice and to situation an applicable round notifying all involved of this requirement and mandating strict adherence in future.
In associated information, a video of a person allegedly attending the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom digital continuing from his washroom had lately gone viral.
Earlier this yr, the excessive courtroom had even imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakh on a person for attending courtroom proceedings by way of video conferencing from a rest room. The involved individual was additionally directed to carry out neighborhood service by cleansing the gardens within the excessive courtroom premises for 2 weeks.
In 2020, the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom had taken a stern view of the “irresponsible conduct” of an Advocate who was seen smoking through the course of Courtroom proceedings through video conferencing, and had imposed a price of Rs. 10,000 upon him.
