Upset by a bare-chested lawyer adjusting the camera all through a hearing by videoconferencing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court remarked that lawyers cannot have the funds for to be so reckless because it has already been eight months since the apex court has been hearing cases in the virtual mode amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
The incident happened in the Supreme Court virtual courtroom presided over by justice LN Rao. The pass judgement on used to be hearing a suo moto petition on the condition of Child Care Homes all through the pandemic when suddenly an image flashed on the screen of a bare-chested person adjusting the camera of the standing counsel for the Kerala government, G Prakash.
The bench called out to the lawyer appearing on the screen, “Someone is standing beside you who is shirtless.” There used to be no response from the other end and the next moment, the link with the lawyer could not be established. The bare-chested person used to be also a lawyer, ML Jishnu, who is related to Prakash.
Upset by the behaviour of the lawyer in question, the bench, also comprising justice Hemant Gupta ,said: “Even after seven to eight months of telling lawyers to be careful all through videoconferencing, you (advocates) are so reckless.”
“I used to be not ready to hear or see the courtroom. Before the hearing started, the link used to be connected but later it disappeared. It used to be all through that time somebody used to be helping to fix the system for me. But I used to be fully dressed up in my advocate robe and because my device faced technical glitch I used to be unable to hear or see what happened in the court,” Prakash told HT.
This is the second one instance in two months of a lawyer appearing without a shirt all through a virtual hearing at the Supreme Court. On October 27, another lawyer appeared shirtless all through the hearing of a case before a bench presided over by justice DY Chandrachud. The pass judgement on had then remarked, “Some decorum must be maintained by lawyers while appearing before us. Caution should be taken in future.” Even solicitor general Tushar Mehta called the behaviour “unpardonable”.
The lawyer who used to be involved then used to be MS Suvidutt who wrote to th solicitor general snd the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Organization president that he used to be attending the Vidyarambam (initiation of education) ceremony of his niece with his camera off. He expressed remorse and apology for his inadvertent act.
Since the videoconferencing proceedings started in March this year, lawyers across high courts too have been caught eating food and appearing informal dressed, mendacity on the bed, and even chewing gutka.
In May this year, the Supreme Court secretary general Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar issued a notification allowing lawyers to shun their long robes and coats while appearing before the court through videoconferencing. The notification said, “The advocates may wear plain white-shirt/white-salwar-kameez/white saree, with a plain-white neck band’ all through the hearings before the Supreme Court of f India through Virtual Court System till medical exigencies exist or until further orders.”
A lawyer found smoking in the car all through a virtual hearing before the Gujarat high court used to be fined Rs 10,000 for his conduct. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan faced an embarrassing moment when he used to be found smoking a hookah all through the hearing of a very powerful case before the Rajasthan high court. He escaped the eyes of the pass judgement on, though.
In June, the Supreme Court hauled up a lawyer for appearing in a T-shirt, lounging on his bed. A bench remarked: “Minimum court etiquette in relation to what may also be thought to be a decent dress, background, etc will have to be followed provided the public nature of the hearings.” The lawyer used to be let off on offering an unconditional apology.[ad_2]