Read Time: 05 minutes

Upon refusal of a counsel appearing for a bail applicant to switch his camera on during the virtual hearing, the Allahabad High Court on Friday adjourned the hearing expressing its displeasure.

Posing the matter for further hearing on March 15, 2022, the Bench of Justice Samit Gopal noted, "The counsel was directed (to) turn on his camera on which he stated that he is not in the uniform and as such he cannot switch it on......This is highly objectionable."

The court was dealing with one criminal miscellaneous bail application. For the arguments, the Counsel for the petitioner was connected through video conferencing and his camera was switched off. When court asked the bail applicant's counsel to switch on his camera, he refused doing so stating that he was in proper uniform. The court found this act objectionable. 

This is not the first instance when the court had to note its objection over counsels' casual approach during virtual hearings. On July 5, 2021, when a lawyer appeared on screen trying to dress himself up while the Court was dictating the Order in a case, court called this act 'unacceptable.'

"Learned counsel appearing for the applicant is not in proper uniform as per the modalities of functioning of the Court. He is trying to dress up, when the order is being dictated. This is not acceptable," the Court had said.

In another matter in July 2021 itself, one lawyer tried to argue a case from a car. Taking note of this, the court pulled up the lawyer and also directed the Registrar General, High Court to frame a set of rules for 'do's and don'ts' for the lawyers while addressing the Courts.

This order had come only a few days after June 30, when an advocate had appeared wearing a colored shirt and did not show any remorse despite his conduct being objected. To this, the court had 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 Court through virtual mode which may cause hurdles in the administration of justice.

Despite all these observations, situations such as instant one keep coming up before the court. 

Case Title: Ajay v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home