FLUSHING COURT DECORUM: CONTEMPT IN THE AGE OF ONLINE HEARINGS

ABSTRACT

The shift to virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point for the Indian judiciary. Courtrooms moved from marble halls to computer screens, ensuring justice could continue even in the most challenging times. But with this convenience came a new problem, how to preserve the seriousness and respect that a court demands when people are logging in from their homes. A recent Gujarat High Court incident, where a man joined a hearing from inside a toilet, brought this question into sharp focus. Such conduct is not just bad manners; it can be seen as criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, striking at the dignity of the institution itself. This article explores how the law defines and punishes such behaviour, looking at constitutional provisions, landmark cases, and the clear message from the Model Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 that the standards of the courtroom do not change just because the venue is virtual. From professional dress to respectful speech, the principles remain the same. In the end, whether you stand before the bench in person or appear in a small video window, the court is still the court , and it deserves nothing less than your full respect.

KEY WORDS: Contempt, Virtual Proceedings, Court Decorum, SC & HC Guidelines.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic transformed the way courts function worldwide. In India too, the judiciary swiftly embraced technology, and virtual hearings became the norm. On 6th April 2020, In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During COVID-19 Pandemic,[1] the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India issued guidelines under Article 142 of the Constitution for smooth virtual hearings, which gave legal sanctity and validity to the court hearings done through video conferencing. Further, Model VC rules were framed by a 5-judge committee which was circulated to all the High Courts for adoption after local contextualization.[2] Even after the pandemic, many courts continue to allow or mandate hybrid hearings. However, this shift has brought new challenges, particularly regarding maintaining the dignity of the court.

In a recent case, reported by Bar and Bench[3] on 27^th June 2025, a man was found attending an online court proceeding while sitting inside a toilet. A video showing a man attending Gujarat High Court virtual proceedings while seated on a toilet and apparently relieving himself has gone viral on the social media. This incident stunned the legal fraternity. Such conduct is not merely improper; it strikes at the dignity of the judiciary and may amount to criminal contempt of court under Indian law. This article examines how misbehaviour during online proceedings can attract contempt, the legal framework behind it, and why respecting courtroom decorum must extend beyond physical courtrooms to virtual spaces too.

What is Contempt of Court?

As per Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971[4], contempt is broadly of two kinds, one is Civil Contempt, and the other is Criminal Contempt.

• Civil Contempt[5]: Civil Contempt is the wilful violation of court order or a breach of an undertaking given to a court. Wilful violation means the violation must be deliberate and intentional, not accidental or due to a misunderstanding.
• Criminal Contempt:[6] “Criminal Contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which –
• scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
• prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
• interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

The broad test to be applied in cases of criminal contempt is whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. The standard of proof required to establish a charge of “criminal contempt” is the same as in any other criminal proceeding.[7]

In the case of D.C. Saxena (Dr) v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,[8] it was said that scandalising the Court or Judge, undermining or tending to undermine people’s confidence in administration of justice and bringing or tending to bring the Court into disrepute or disrespect tantamount to criminal contempt.

According to Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, a person may be awarded a simple imprisonment of up to 6 months, or a fine of up to Rs. 2000, or both.[9]

Constitutional Provisions:

Constitution of India incorporates provisions related to the concept of Contempt of Court. There are two such provisions, one is Article 129, and the other is Article 215. Article 129 reads as “the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself”[10]. This Article is exclusively for the Supreme Court of India which gives power to the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself. Further, Article 215 reads as “Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”[11] This Article gives all 25 High Courts the power to punish for contempt of their own proceedings.

Misbehaviour During Virtual Hearings

Virtual proceedings create a misconception for some people that being at home allows casual conduct. Sometimes, it encouraged participants, including lawyers, litigants, and witnesses to treat the process informally. Common instances of misbehaviour include –

• Appearing improperly dressed (e.g., not wearing appropriate attire or court dress).
• Attending court from inappropriate locations like bedrooms, cars, parks, or noisy public spaces.
• Eating, smoking, or drinking visibly while proceedings are underway.
• Keeping video/audio on when engaging in private or inappropriate activities.
• Using disrespectful language, gestures, or background noises

Such conducts, though occurring outside the courtroom, directly impacts the respect and solemnity the court requires.

Judicial Responses and Notable Incidents

Indian courts have repeatedly expressed displeasure at such conducts of misbehaviour during online proceedings. Some examples are:

•  The shift to virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic did not dilute the obligation of advocates and litigants to maintain the decorum of the court. In a notable incident in May 2021, the Gujarat High Court sternly warned an advocate who appeared shirtless during a video conference hearing. Justice Bela M. Trivedi emphasized that the professional dress code and respectful conduct expected inside a physical courtroom equally apply to virtual proceedings. This incident reinforced the principle that online hearings are no exception. The dignity, solemnity, and decorum of the court must be upheld at all times, regardless of the medium through which justice is administered.
• In an incident happened in the Supreme Court virtual courtroom presided over by justice LN Rao. The judge was hearing a suo moto petition on the condition of Child Care Homes during 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 was no response from the other end and the next moment, the link with the lawyer could not be established. The bare-chested person was 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 during videoconferencing, you (advocates) are so reckless.”[12]
• The Rajasthan High Court issued detailed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on 26^th Apr. 2021 titled “Standard Operating Procedure for Functioning of Courts through Video Conferencing.” It clearly mentions that all Advocates appearing before the Court through video conferencing shall be properly dressed in court attire as prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules.”
• Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020: The e‑Committee of the Supreme Court of India, chaired by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, constituted a sub‑committee of five High Court judges in April 2020 to draft the Model Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts. These Rules aim to standardize the conduct of virtual hearings across India. This model mandates that the advocates and litigants must appear in appropriate attire and in a professional setting, even when joining from. It also specifies minimum requirements for internet bandwidth, cameras and background settings and mandates that the microphones must be muted when not speaking. Further, it strictly prohibits the unauthorised recording of the proceedings.

Best Practices for Virtual Court Appearance

Whether you stand before the bench in a grand courtroom or appear in a small window on a judge’s screen, the dignity of the court remains the same. Lawyers are expected to wear their prescribed robes, coats, and bands, while litigants and witnesses should dress in formal attire that conveys respect. Your background should be quiet and professional and not the inside of a car, a cafe, or, as a recent shocking incident proved, a bathroom. Good internet, a working microphone, and a stable camera are not luxuries but necessities, and microphones should be muted when you are not speaking to avoid unintended interruptions. Speak to the bench with the same courtesy as you would in person, avoiding slang, casual gestures, or inattentive body language. While appearing before a virtual court, it must be kept in mind that eating, smoking, or engaging in unrelated activities while the court is in session not only distracts others but may amount to misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. As the Model Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 and several High Court SOPs make it clear that a virtual courtroom is not “less” of a courtroom, it is simply a different doorway to the same seat of justice, and it demands the same respect.

Conclusion:

The advent of virtual court hearings has been one of the most significant judicial reforms in recent decades. It enables access to justice even amidst global disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as this article has shown, the convenience of attending proceedings from one’s home does not dilute the solemnity, discipline, or respect demanded by the judicial process. Importantly, contempt is not limited to conduct within the physical walls of a courtroom, it extends to any behaviour that undermines the authority or dignity of the judiciary, including during virtual hearings. The shocking recent incident of a litigant attending a Gujarat High Court hearing from a toilet is not merely a breach of etiquette, it is a serious affront to the dignity of the court and may well amount to criminal contempt under Indian law. The Supreme Court and several High Courts have repeatedly expressed displeasure at such conduct and emphasised that online hearings carry the same dignity as physical courtrooms. Online hearings are no exception; all participants must uphold the court’s decorum and respect. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, constitutional provisions in Articles 129 and 215, and judicial precedents all underscore the judiciary’s power and duty to safeguard its authority from acts that erode public confidence. The Model Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 and various High Court SOPs make it clear that virtual courts are no different in status from physical ones; attire, setting, and conduct must reflect this parity. The onus lies on both legal professionals and litigants to adapt their behaviour to uphold courtroom decorum, regardless of medium. Technology may have changed the courtroom’s appearance, but it has not altered its essence. It must be kept in mind that a virtual hearing is not a casual video call, it is an extension of the court’s sacred space. Those who step into it, whether physically or digitally, must remember: the screen may separate you from the bench, but the respect owed to justice remains undivided.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (No. 70 of 1971), Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
2. The Advocates Act, 1961, (No. 25 of 1961), Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).
3. The Constitution of India, arts. 129, 215.
4. In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During COVID-19 Pandemic, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2020, Supreme Court of India (Apr. 6, 2020).
5. Model Video Conferencing Rules for Courts, 2020, e-Committee, Supreme Court of India.
6. Bar Council of India, “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette,” Part VI, Chapter II, Bar Council of India Rules.
7. Gujarat High Court, Standard Operating Procedure for Video Conferencing, 2021.
8. Rajasthan High Court, Standard Operating Procedure for Virtual Hearings, 2020.
9. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, “Supreme Court Issues Guidelines for Video Conferencing,” Apr. 6, 2020, available at: https://pib.gov.in.
10. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash, (1976) 1 SCC975.
11. C. Saxena (Dr) v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216.

[1] (2020) SCC OnLine SC 343.

[2]Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Law and Justice, Online Courts For Ensuring Fair Trial, Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1807613 (last visited on 28^th June, 2025).

[3] A different kind of relief? Video shows man attending Gujarat High Court proceedings from toilet seat, available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/a-different-kind-of-relief-video-shows-man-attending-gujarat-high-court-proceedings-from-toilet-seat  (last visited on 28^th June, 2025).

[4] The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), S. 2(a)

[5] The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), S. 2(b)

[6] The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), S. 2(c)

[7] S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash, (1976) 1 SCC975.

[8] D.C. Saxena (Dr) v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216.

[9] The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), S. 12.

[10] The Constitution of India, art. 129

[11] The Constitution of India, art. 215

[12] Hindustan Times, SC Angered After Man Appears Shirtless During Online Hearing, available at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-angered-after-man-appears-shirtless-during-online-hearing/story-EYhDM7yvSXADgnp6L1GJHP.html , (last visited on 03 Jul. 25).