With the gavel gone virtual are online courtrooms turning into a droll? Much like the rest of the world with optimism and necessity arising out of pandemic India embraced virtual courts, but with increasing backlog of cases and a revolutionary step towards accessibility, virtual hearings became the new normal! But however now that we stand in July 2025, the initial euphoria seems to be giving way to a collective sigh, as the digital transition reveals a stark truth: online courtrooms, for all their promises, are increasingly turning into a droll affair.
The concept of digital courts isn't entirely new to India. Efforts towards computerization of the judiciary began as early as 2006 with the e-Courts project, aiming to digitize records and streamline processes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic acted as an unprecedented catalyst, forcing the entire judicial system, from the Supreme Court to the lowest district courts, to adopt virtual proceedings almost overnight. The Supreme Court's guidelines in April 2020, allowing all courts to conduct hearings via video conferencing, marked a significant shift. For a time, it seemed like a true revolution, promising to reduce travel time, costs, and alleviate the notorious case pendency.
Yet, a closer look at recent incidents and ongoing challenges paints a less rosy picture. The "droll" aspect of online courtrooms isn't just about the occasional technical glitch; it's about a further deterioration of the core values, effectiveness, and seriousness that support the Indian legal system.
The most common instances of inappropriate behavior by participants are the most obvious and, to be honest, humorous-instances of how virtual courts can devolve into a farce. Just days ago, a video went viral showing a man attending a Gujarat High Court hearing while seated on a toilet, adjusting his camera to reveal his rather undignified surroundings. He was even seen cleaning himself during the live proceeding! This incident, while shocking, is far from isolated. Earlier this year, in April, the Gujarat High Court imposed a hefty ?50,000 fine on a litigant caught smoking during a video conference. Similarly, a Delhi court had to summon a litigant who was also seen puffing away during an online hearing in March. In another recent instance from July 2025, the Delhi High Court slammed an advocate who appeared for a virtual hearing while standing in a park, emphasizing that "hybrid court is still court" and decorum must be maintained.
These incidents aren’t just amusing anecdotes they highlight a critical violation in decorum and respect for judicial process. In a physical courtroom the gravity of the environment, the presence of the judge, & formal procedures mainly showcase a certain level of seriousness. In virtual mode, this “social audit” becomes a diluted dilemma. The comfort of one's home can, absurdly, lead to a casualness that borders on contempt, turning serious legal battles into a strange reality show. While courts have repeatedly urged participants to maintain decorum, these episodes highlight the difficulty of enforcing such standards in a dispersed and informal setting.
Beyond the tricks, technical issues continue to plague virtual hearings, leading to annoying delays and inefficiencies. Lawyers and litigants frequently grapple with poor internet connectivity, audio-visual glitches, and incompatible software. Imagine trying to present a complex legal argument when your video freezes, your audio cuts out, or the judge's voice sounds like it's coming from a distant galaxy. These technical hiccups not only waste precious judicial time but also disrupt the flow of arguments, make it difficult to assess witness testimonies, and can profoundly impact the outcome of a case. For many, especially in rural India, access to reliable broadband and suitable devices remains a distant dream, further worsening the "digital divide." This creates a two-tiered justice system where digital access dictates the quality of legal representation and the ease of engaging with the courts.
One of the most fundamental doctrines of the Indian justice system, deeply preserved in Article
145(4) of the Constitution and echoed in procedural codes (Section 153B of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code), is the principle of "open court." This means that court proceedings are generally accessible to the public, fostering transparency, accountability, and public trust in the judiciary. The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments such as Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), even clearly held that live-streaming of proceedings is an integral part of the right to access justice under Article 21.
However, the current reality of virtual courtrooms often falls significantly short of this ideal. While some higher courts have indeed begun live-streaming, many virtual hearings, particularly at the district and subordinate levels, are still limited to the parties directly involved, their advocates, and the judicial staff. The general public, for whom the "open court" principle is crucial for ensuring judicial accountability, often lacks easy or direct access to these online proceedings. This creates a disturbing disconnect, limiting public scrutiny and understanding of the judicial process. The transparency that the open court system aims to provide is, in many instances, unintentionally sacrificed on the altar of technological convenience.
Furthermore, the lack of physical presence can also impact the quality of interaction and the nuanced reading of courtroom dynamics. The subtle cues from a witness, the body language of a litigant, or the unstated implications in a lawyer's behavior can be lost or misinterpreted through a digital interface. This not only affects the judge's ability to fully gauge credibility but also alters the very nature of advocacy. The art of courtroom persuasion, which often relies on presence, pauses, and direct engagement, is significantly diminished in the flat, two-dimensional world of a video call.
It's crucial to acknowledge that the challenges outlined are not arguments for a complete abandonment of online courtrooms. The pandemic undeniably demonstrated their utility in ensuring judicial continuity during unprecedented times. Virtual hearings have indeed offered some benefits, such as reducing travel time and costs for advocates and litigants in certain circumstances, especially for procedural matters or those involving parties spread across different geographical locations. They have also contributed to a certain degree of operational efficiency by allowing more cases to be listed in a day.
However, for online courtrooms to truly evolve beyond being a "droll" and often frustrating experience, India's judiciary needs a strategic, well-thought-out, and inclusive approach. This can include:
In conclusion, while online courtrooms were a necessary innovation driven by extraordinary circumstances, the initial enthusiasm has been tempered by the reality of their implementation. The frequent lapses in decorum, persistent technical glitches, and the exacerbation of the digital divide have, for many, turned the promise of swift, accessible justice into a droll and often frustrating exercise. For India's judiciary to truly benefit from the potential of technology, it must move beyond simply digitizing existing processes and instead, embark on a thoughtful, inclusive, and well-resourced reform that prioritizes equitable access, maintains judicial gravity, and ensures that the pursuit of justice, whether physical or virtual, remains a grave and effective effort. Otherwise, the virtual gavel might just keep hitting a rather hollow note.
By Garvita Gupta
Studying at UPES, Dehradun
N-55, Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi 110065
ireneslegal9@gmail.com
+91 995 378 5058
Copyright © ireneslegal.com. All Rights Reserved.
Designed by Questend India Pvt Ltd
