Gujarat High Court Mandates the Use of Proper Display Name during Video Conference Hearings

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

The Gujarat High Court has made the display of the full name of the participants during Zoom Video Conferencing (VC) hearing mandatory. If the full proper name is not displayed, then such persons will be prohibited from entering the VC hearing session.

The High Court has been hearing matters through video conferencing hearing sessions since the beginning of lockdown. This is the first of its kind experience for a lot of people. It is also, for the Court’s smooth functioning. But the administration has been facing many challenges since the beginning. Since it is very difficult to identify people with various display names and allow them inside the virtual Courtroom. As there is always a scope for error in such situations.

Steps taken by the Court before Issuance of the Circular

Many warnings had been given by the Court before issuing this circular. The Court instructed the Advocates to make use of proper display names but all efforts in vain. The Advocates continued the use of improper or confusing display names while calling. This became the cause for a lot of hardships for the Courts as well as the Advocates. Therefore the need to pass an official order arose.

The Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, Mr. Vikram Nath, directed the Registrar General to pass this order. The circular for said order was issued on 15 May 2020.

Issue

Many Advocates did not have their proper name on display while joining the video conferencing sessions held before the High Court. Often, the name displayed was a random username, first name without the surname, ‘Admin’ or some abstract display name. This made it difficult to identify those who actually intend to join the video conferencing hearing sessions. 

Order of the Court

The Chief Justice directed the Registrar General to not let anyone join the video conferencing hearing session without a proper display name. Lack of disclosure would lead to the Advocates not been allowed to enter the virtual courtroom.

This order of the High Court now makes it mandatory for all the Advocates to use their real full names before joining the hearing. Thus, it will become easier for the administration to identify and allow people into virtual Courtrooms.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -