Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Delhi High Court has barred a woman lawyer from appearing before it through video conferencing, noting that she switched off her camera and muted herself citing parallel ongoing hearing which is against the VC Rules.

Justice Tejas Karia passed the order and barred the lawyer from appearing before his court through VC henceforth.

“….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 so she had put this Court on mute and the video was also switched off. This conduct of the learned Counsel is contrary to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 of the High Court of Delhi,” the Court said.

The Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, was notified by the Delhi High Court on July 04. The Rules aim to standardize and streamline use of electronic evidence and video conferencing in the Courts, in order to align the process with the new legal framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

They provide guidelines for participants, including being in a quiet location, ensuring a secure and stable connection and maintaining decorum by not engaging in other activities or using offensive language.

“Accordingly,….Advocate is barred to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing henceforth,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with civil commercial suit filed by Mahindra HZPC Private Limited against Ram Farms and others. The lawyer in question was appearing for defendants 1 and 2.

Mahindra sought to restrain the defendants from commercializing or dealing in potato variety as specified by them as ' SRF- . C51 ' or any other potato products that infringed its registered Plant variety "Colomba.”

The Counsel appearing for Mahindra submitted that the analysis of samples of the potato crop, in compliance of an earlier order, was filed in a sealed envelope and the access of the same was given to the parties in August.

Perusing the materials on record, the Court noted that Mahindra's sample and the Defendants' samples were either from the same cultivator or shared common parental lines.

It passed ad interim injunction in favour of Mahindra and restrained the defendants from producing, selling or or dealing in potato variety as specified by them as 'SRF-C51' or any other potato products which infringes the plant variety 'COLOMBA.'

It further restrained Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to take down a YouTube video for illegally promoting the sale of their variety 'SRF- C51' as being identical to Mahindra's registered plant variety 'COLOMBA'.

The matter will now be heard on January 19, 2016.

Title: MAHINDRA HZPC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. SHRI RAM FARMS & ORS

Click here to read order