Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs on Advocate for Joining Virtual Hearing From Moving Car

The Delhi High Court has imposed ₹1 lakh in costs on an advocate who appeared in a virtual hearing from a moving car.

What Happened

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on advocate Nachiketa Goyal after he appeared in a virtual hearing from a moving car while representing the decree holders in enforcement proceedings.

The order was passed by Justice Om Prakash Shukla on 28 September 2026 and was reported on 29 September. The Court directed that the amount be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week, with proof of payment also to be filed within that period.

The Court said that it appreciates the convenience offered by virtual hearings, but that such convenience cannot come at the cost of courtroom decorum or disturb the conduct of judicial proceedings.

Justice Shukla noted that the Court may have to deal with more than 70 matters in a day. In that setting, the Court said, background noise and movement during a hearing can be disruptive. The Court also held that the applicable video-conferencing rules require advocates to appear from an environment conducive to the proper functioning of the Court.

Background & Context

The costs order arose while the Court was hearing enforcement proceedings brought by South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

The Court referred to the Delhi High Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. The Rules formally govern the use of electronic communication and video conferencing in proceedings before the Delhi High Court and courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.

The relevant provision does not impose an absolute prohibition on advocates appearing from vehicles. Instead, it states that advocates should endeavour not to join proceedings from vehicles, except in exceptional circumstances and with the permission of the Court.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Delhi High Court, single-judge bench.
• Judge: Justice Om Prakash Shukla.
• Date of order: 28 September 2026.
• Proceedings: Enforcement proceedings brought by South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd against NHAI.
• Rules invoked: Delhi High Court Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.
• Advocate: Nachiketa Goyal, counsel for the decree holders.
• Costs: ₹1 lakh, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week, with proof of payment to be filed within one week.
• Next hearing: 15 October 2026.
• Current status: Costs imposed and the matters listed for further hearing.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates how the Delhi High Court’s rules for virtual proceedings operate in practice.

The 2025 Rules recognise video conferencing as part of court proceedings while also setting expectations for the conditions in which advocates participate. The provision concerning vehicles is framed as an endeavour rather than an absolute ban, with an exception for exceptional circumstances and permission from the Court.

In this case, the Court treated movement and background noise as issues affecting the functioning of a busy court rather than as a minor matter of convenience. It also expressly connected the requirement to the written video-conferencing rules.

The order therefore provides a practical illustration for practitioners and law students of the distinction between having access to a virtual hearing and the conditions attached to participating in one. At the same time, the reported material does not establish the advocate’s reasons for appearing from the vehicle or whether he sought permission. The order concerns the circumstances recorded in this particular hearing and does not state that every appearance from a vehicle will result in costs.

Reactions

The Court, as reported by Bar & Bench, observed: “When this Court has to deal with more than 70 matters in a day, background noise and movement during the hearing are disruptive for this Court to proceed.”

No response from Nachiketa Goyal, the decree holders, the banks or NHAI has been reported in the sources reviewed.

Closing

The Delhi High Court’s order places the focus on the conditions under which virtual participation takes place. While remote hearings provide flexibility, the Court’s 28 September order shows that the flexibility operates within the framework of its video-conferencing rules and the need to conduct proceedings without disruption.

The enforcement proceedings are listed for further hearing on 15 October 2026.