Recently, the Gujarat High Court came down heavily on people who failed to uphold the court’s dignity during virtual hearings. In two separate cases, the Gujarat High Court took strict action against two men who joined the virtual proceedings of the court indecently. One of them joined the online proceeding from a lavatory while the other joined lying on a bed.
Man joined virtual court proceeding from a lavatory, fined ₹2 lakh
A bench of Justice MK Thakkar condemned a man’s behaviour who joined the court’s virtual hearing held last month on 17th January from a toilet. The High Court imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakh on 42-year-old Dhavalbhai Kanubhai Ambalal Patel for lowering the court’s dignity. The court also imposed community service on Patel directing him to water and clean the gardens in the High Court premises for two weeks, serving 8 hours daily.
Patel reportedly joined the virtual hearing in a case in which his father was a respondent. At first he behaved indecently during the online hearing, causing the court to disconnect him. He then rejoined the hearing after some time, this time from a toilet. The incident remained unnoticed until its video went viral on social media leading to an inquiry. The court directed Sola Police Station to identify the person and submit a report.
An investigation by the police revealed that someone had joined the virtual hearing on 17th February under the name ‘Kanubhai’ but he was removed from the session due to indecent behaviour. He attempted to join again but he appeared in a lavatory and was immediately removed from the session. Later, he joined using another case number.
Subsequently, an order was passed by the High Court on 27th February directing Patel and his father to appear before the court on 5th March. On the day of the hearing, Advocate Amresh Patel appearing for the father said that the client’s son joined the High Court’s website through Zoom by mistake. The Advocate added that the mistake was unintentional and that his client had already apologised for the mistake. However, the court was not convinced by the explanation. The court noted that it is hard to accept that a 42-year-old man holding a B.Sc. degree and working with the Reliance Group was not familiar with the Zoom application.
“In such a scenario, the indecent act is not only unacceptable but it is shameful and is required to be strictly condemned. If Courts do not deal with such a person with strong hands then, that may result (in) lowering the dignity of the institution in the eyes of the public,” the court noted in its order passed on 5th March.
“This Court deems it fit to impose exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 to Dhaval Kanubhai Patel, who is present before this Court and same shall be deposited with the Registry within a period of two weeks from today. On depositing the costs, the Registry is directed to remit ₹50,000 in the account of the Shishugruh Paldi, Ahmedabad and remaining amount in the account of the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Services Authorities,” the court said.
The court also directed Patel to clean and water the gardens on the high court campus at Sola for two weeks. His daily eight hours of community service ended on Thursday.
Man joined a virtual court hearing while lying in bed, gets fined and
On 13th February, another man named Vamdev Gandhi joined a virtual court proceeding in the court of Justice MK Thakhar while lying in his bed. When the court noticed the indecency shown by the litigant, it imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on him. “Online hearing facilities were provided for access to justice and larger public interest, but at the same time, the person joining the online link has to maintain utmost discipline and decorum for upholding the dignity and majesty of the court,” the court said.
“The petitioner was lying on his bed and watching the court proceedings as if he was enjoying a movie. Such conduct compromises the dignity and the decorum of the court, and therefore it cannot be tolerated. If such an act is not dealt with strong hands, that may result in lowering the dignity of the court in the eyes of the public,” the court noted in its order imposing a penalty on the litigant.
