Delhi High Court: Advocate Moving Car Fine Levies ₹1 Lakh Penalty

• The Delhi High Court imposed a ₹1 lakh fine on Advocate Nachiketa Goyal for appearing in a virtual hearing from a moving car.
• Justice Om Prakash Shukla stated that the convenience of virtual proceedings cannot compromise courtroom decorum or disrupt judicial processes.
• The court cited its Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which advise against advocates joining from vehicles without exceptional circumstances and court permission.
• The court found no exceptional circumstances in this case, deeming the advocate's conduct a violation of the rules.
• The imposed fine is to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC).

Failure to maintain courtroom decorum during virtual proceedings can result in significant financial penalties and professional repercussions, establishing a clear precedent for expected conduct.

The Delhi High Court recently levied a substantial penalty of ₹1 lakh against an advocate for participating in a virtual court proceeding from a moving vehicle. Justice Om Prakash Shukla, presiding over the matter, ordered Advocate Nachiketa Goyal to deposit this sum with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC). This significant Delhi High Court advocate moving car fine underscores the judiciary's firm stance on maintaining decorum during remote hearings.

The imposition of these Nachiketa Goyal virtual hearing costs stemmed directly from the advocate's decision to attend a live virtual session while in transit. The court found this conduct unacceptable, emphasizing that the convenience offered by virtual proceedings does not supersede the fundamental requirements of courtroom etiquette and the smooth functioning of judicial processes. This incident occurred during enforcement proceedings initiated by South Indian Bank and Union Bank of India against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

Justice Om Prakash Shukla articulated the court's rationale, stating that allowing such disruptions would undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings. He highlighted the practical challenges faced by the court, noting that handling over 70 matters daily makes background noise and movement during hearings particularly disruptive for the bench. This perspective from Justice Om Prakash Shukla virtual court proceedings emphasizes the need for a focused and respectful environment, even when physical presence is not required.

The court further referenced its own Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which explicitly guide advocate professional conduct virtual hearing. These rules stipulate that legal counsel should endeavor to avoid joining virtual proceedings from vehicles, reserving such instances only for exceptional circumstances and with prior court permission. The bench clarified that this requirement is not merely a procedural formality but is designed to ensure that advocates operate from an environment conducive to the proper administration of justice. In the specific case of Advocate Goyal, the court found no exceptional circumstances to justify the breach of these established guidelines.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder for lawyers and compliance officers in India to strictly adhere to virtual hearing protocols, particularly regarding appropriate environments. The Delhi High Court virtual court decorum is paramount, and this decision establishes a clear precedent that convenience cannot compromise the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The substantial financial penalty signals that the judiciary is prepared to enforce these standards rigorously, making it imperative for legal professionals to ensure their virtual setups are free from distractions and conducive to respectful engagement.

Failure to maintain courtroom decorum during virtual proceedings can result in significant financial penalties and professional repercussions, as demonstrated by the Nachiketa Goyal virtual hearing costs. This judgment reinforces the expectation that even in a remote setting, the professional conduct of advocates must uphold the dignity and efficiency of the court. It underscores the importance of understanding and complying with evolving virtual court guidelines, such as the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules 2025, to avoid similar sanctions and ensure uninterrupted judicial functioning.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder for lawyers and compliance officers in India to strictly adhere to virtual hearing protocols, particularly regarding appropriate environments. Failure to maintain courtroom decorum during virtual proceedings can result in significant financial penalties and professional repercussions, establishing a clear precedent for expected conduct.

Source: Reporting based on court documents.