In a significant order reinforcing courtroom discipline in digital proceedings, the Delhi High Court has barred a woman advocate from appearing before it through video conferencing after she switched off her camera and muted herself during a hearing, citing a parallel matter she was attending.
Justice Tejas Karia, presiding over the case, observed that the advocate’s conduct was in clear violation of the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, recently notified by the High Court. The Court emphasized that lawyers must treat virtual hearings with the same seriousness and decorum as physical appearances.
Court Takes Exception to Advocate’s Conduct
The incident occurred during proceedings in Mahindra HZPC Private Limited & Ors. v. Shri Ram Farms & Ors., a civil commercial suit concerning an alleged infringement of plant variety rights.
The advocate representing Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through video conferencing but turned off her camera and muted herself when a query was raised by the Court. Upon rejoining, she explained that she had muted the hearing because another proceeding was ongoing.
Justice Karia took strong exception to this behavior, terming it contrary to the Court’s rules governing virtual hearings.
“The learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, initially appeared through Video Conference and when a query was put up by this Court, her video was switched off and she was on mute. After some time, she again appeared through the Video Conference and submitted that a parallel hearing was going on… This conduct of the learned Counsel is contrary to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 of the High Court of Delhi,” the order stated.
The Court consequently directed that the advocate be barred from appearing before the bench through video conferencing henceforth, emphasizing that hybrid hearings are a matter of procedural convenience, not an entitlement that excuses unprofessional conduct.
The 2025 Rules: Standardizing Virtual Justice
The Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, were notified on July 4, 2025, with the objective of institutionalizing best practices for conducting digital proceedings in line with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Rules outline specific obligations for participants in virtual hearings, including:
∙ Attending from a quiet and appropriate location.
∙ Maintaining a secure and stable internet connection.
∙ Keeping the video on throughout the hearing.
∙ Avoiding participation in multiple proceedings simultaneously.
Justice Karia’s ruling is a reminder that the adoption of technology in courts must not dilute the professional ethics or disciplinary standards expected from the Bar. The judgment thus strengthens the principle that digital access must complement — not compromise — courtroom decorum.
Background of the Case: Mahindra’s IP Dispute
The larger dispute involved a plant variety infringement claim filed by Mahindra HZPC Private Limited, a joint venture company, against Shri Ram Farms and others.
Mahindra alleged that the defendants were producing and selling a potato variety labeled ‘SRF-C51’, which was identical or substantially similar to its registered variety ‘Colomba.’
Counsel for Mahindra submitted that analysis of crop samples — filed in a sealed envelope as per earlier directions — revealed that the defendants’ samples were either from the same cultivator or shared common parental genetic lines with Mahindra’s registered variety.
Court Grants Interim Injunction
After examining the material on record, Justice Karia granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from producing, selling, or dealing in the potato variety ‘SRF-C51’ or any other product infringing the registered plant variety ‘Colomba.’
The Court further directed Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to remove a YouTube video promoting their variety ‘SRF-C51’ as identical to Mahindra’s, holding
that such promotion violated intellectual property rights under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on January 19, 2026.
Judicial Insight: Upholding Decorum in the Digital Era
The order reflects a growing judicial trend to enforce accountability and professionalism in hybrid hearings. Post-pandemic, courts across the country have integrated technology into daily functioning; however, the judiciary has consistently maintained that virtual participation cannot become a pretext for casual conduct.
By invoking the Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that advocates must adhere to the same standards of discipline and attention online as they would inside a courtroom.
Legal experts view this decision as a benchmark ruling for professional ethics in the era of virtual justice — ensuring that convenience does not eclipse courtroom integrity. Case Title: Mahindra HZPC Private Limited & Ors. v. Shri Ram Farms & Ors. Bench: Justice Tejas Karia Next Hearing Date: January 19, 2026
