

Virtual hearings are fast becoming a norm in the Indian judicial system and became routine during the covid pandemic. It has not only given Advocates the freedom and flexibility to appear in various courts and expand their practice without having to travel long distances, the litigants have been provided greater access to courts with the ability to virtually log in and watch the proceedings so as to gain first hand knowledge of the developments in their matters. However, while the adoption of virtual hearings has had its advantages, there have been many instances of unprofessional conduct at the hands of counsels as well as litigants during such hearings which has caught the attention of the nation. This article endeavours to shed light on the proper manner in which advocates and litigants are expected to participate in virtual hearings.
In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic, Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 5/2020, vide order dated April 6, 2020, the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, authorised the High Courts to adopt video conferencing technologies. The Delhi High Court framed its Video Conferencing Rules, 2021 in this background, which have since been repealed by the 2025 Rules. The Delhi High Court notified the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 [the “Rules”] vide Notification No. 36/Rules/DHC dated July 4, 2025, published in the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary on July 7, .2025. The Rules consolidate the provisions governing electronic evidence and virtual appearance before the High Court, all District Courts and the tribunals over which it has jurisdiction.
These Rules are neither vague nor silent. They clearly state where an advocate may appear from, and how every participant must conduct himself or herself. Yet, more than a year after the Rules came into force, virtual hearings often tell a different story. Advocates and guests / participants join from various locations such as a bedroom, garden, car, metro coach with announcements playing in the background, or from court corridor with litigants and clerks walking past.
A virtual hearing is a hearing before the courts, and the Rules say so in terms. Rule 5(i) provides that all proceedings conducted through VC are judicial proceedings and that all parties shall maintain the decorum and protocols applicable to them. The screen changes the medium; however, it does not dilute the sanctity of the courtroom or the etiquette expected therein.
The starting point is Rule 2(1)(b), which defines an “Advocate’s remote point." It is a place from where an advocate may appear through a live link, and includes the advocate’s chamber or office, or a place notified by the Bar for VC. Rule 11(4) permits an advocate to appear from that place for making submissions or for the examination of witnesses. Paragraph 7 of Schedule I then closes the question: every advocate appearing through VC before a Court or Tribunal “shall” join from the Advocate’s remote point.
The Rule is mandatory and leaves no room for a place of convenience. The same paragraph adds that an endeavour shall be made to avoid joining from mobile phones, public places, vehicles or court corridors, especially for addressing long arguments, barring exceptional circumstances and with the permission of the Court. It is pertinent to note that such permission must come from the Court, and it cannot be presumed by an advocate. Using a hand-held phone from an unsettled location will rarely satisfy Rule 20(6), which requires that every participant can be seen and heard clearly.
The Rules also distinguish carefully between places to appear from. Rule 2(1)(h) defines a “Designated Place” as a place where facilities are made available for electronic communication with the court. Rule 2(1)(l) defines a “Remote Point” as a place where any person is required to be present or appear through a live link, including a designated place from where submissions may be made, but it does not include the Advocate’s remote point. The Court may, if it thinks fit, permit a person to connect from their place of residence or work in cases of sickness, infirmity or undue delay or expense. These are exceptions granted by the Court. Neither exception permits a participant or an advocate to decide unilaterally to appear from such a location.
Schedule I is the code of conduct, and Rule 20(2) makes it binding on every advocate. Much of it is what every lawyer already observes in a physical court. A few provisions, however, are often disregarded. Paragraphs 7 and 8 require the Advocate’s remote point to be a quiet and properly secured location with sufficient internet coverage. They further warn that any unwarranted disturbance may, if the Presiding Judge so directs, render the proceedings non-est. Further, Paragraph 10, read with Paragraph 11 requires all participants to remain attentive and that there be no background noise or unnecessary movement and requires interruptions to be minimized to maintain the decorum of judicial proceedings.
The Rules ask for a quiet room, a steady connection, professional attire and attention for the duration of the proceedings. An advocate who cannot meet these requirements on a given day has a simple remedy: to seek the permission of the Court. Virtual access has served the Bar and litigants well, and it will last only as long as its conditions are honoured. The screen does not shorten the distance between the Bar and the Bench, nor the courtesy owed across it, and an advocate who logs in is still in court. Equally important is for advocates to properly explain to their clients of court decorum while appearing virtually to preserve the sanctity of the institution.
About the authors: Ashish Kumar is a Partner and Head of Japan Desk, Sanvi Jain is an Associate at SNG & Partners.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.