Introduction:

In a recent stern pronouncement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a strong rebuke to members of the Bar for their increasing tendency to rely on mobile phones, artificial intelligence platforms, and Google searches during the course of oral arguments. The Court was presided over by Justice Sanjay Vashisth, who addressed incidents that occurred in two connected matters, RXXXXX v. State of Haryana and Ravneet Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, where advocates, instead of preparing in advance, resorted to instant digital searches in open court to answer judicial queries. The judge underscored that such conduct was both unprofessional and discourteous, highlighting the differences between acceptable professional tools such as laptops and iPads, which can be used as part of the case preparation, and mobile phones, which are considered casual and unsuitable for courtroom advocacy. These incidents led the Court not only to admonish the individual lawyers involved but also to issue directions to Bar Associations to sensitize advocates and prevent recurrence of such situations. The judgment stands as an important reminder of the decorum and preparation expected from advocates in judicial proceedings, while also reflecting on the balance between modern technology and the dignity of the court process.

Arguments Presented by the Lawyers and Observations of the Court:

During the course of hearing in RXXXXX v. State of Haryana, the counsel for the petitioner was asked a pointed query by the Court. Instead of relying on prepared notes or referring to the case files, the lawyer immediately took out his mobile phone and attempted to search for the relevant material through Google and artificial intelligence tools. This act prompted the Court to intervene and seize the mobile phone temporarily, demonstrating that such conduct was wholly unacceptable. The lawyer, attempting to justify his action, argued that since legal research today is significantly driven by digital platforms, he was only utilizing readily available technology to assist the Court in resolving the issue. According to him, modern-day practice requires immediate access to the latest information, updates, and case laws, which are sometimes most accessible through mobile devices. He sought leniency by contending that he had no intention to disrespect the Court, but merely aimed at providing accurate assistance.

However, the Court noted with disapproval that this argument betrayed a lack of preparedness, since an advocate is expected to anticipate possible queries and be ready with answers before stepping into the courtroom. Justice Vashisth held that reliance on last-minute mobile searches conveys an impression of negligence and casualness, which undermines the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The Court clarified that while technology has become an inseparable part of legal practice, the line must be drawn between professional tools like laptops and iPads—integrated into office files and properly set up for court use—and mobile phones, which are not regarded as acceptable instruments for use during oral arguments.

In the second matter, Ravneet Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, a similar situation arose where, upon being asked a specific query, the lawyer immediately resorted to his mobile device for an answer. Justice Vashisth intervened again, observing that such practice “ought to have been collected by the learned counsel in advance to the hearing, while preparing the case for arguments.” The Court reiterated that preparation is the hallmark of professionalism, and reliance on last-minute mobile phone searches not only delays proceedings but also disrupts the flow of judicial discourse. The judge made a pointed remark that at times entire proceedings are stalled, waiting for advocates to retrieve answers from their phones, thereby wasting valuable judicial time and hampering the efficiency of the courtroom.

The lawyers, in defense, maintained that mobile phones are often used for communication with colleagues, clients, or juniors outside the courtroom and occasionally serve as a source for quick references. They emphasized that the rapid pace of legal updates, particularly in statutes and case laws, sometimes necessitates instant verification of facts. They contended that banning the use of mobile devices altogether could amount to restricting advocates from using legitimate resources to aid justice delivery. They also suggested that the Court should distinguish between misuse and responsible use, rather than imposing blanket disapproval.

Justice Vashisth, however, decisively dismissed such contentions, stating that allowing advocates to freely rely on mobile phones during arguments would open the floodgates of indiscipline and erode the dignity of the profession. The Court said, “Such a practice is wholly unacceptable on two counts. Firstly, the use of mobile phone while addressing the arguments in the Court reflects a discourteous and unprofessional attitude, which cannot be condoned. Secondly, unlike iPads or laptops, which are considered professional tools integrated with the office setup and case files, mobile phones are not regarded as acceptable devices for use during arguments in the Court proceedings.” The Court further emphasized that if advocates feel the need to refer to online materials, they must do so prior to the hearing while preparing the case, and not in the midst of ongoing proceedings.

Court’s Judgment and Directives:

In delivering its judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court adopted a balanced yet firm approach. Justice Sanjay Vashisth explicitly recognized the role of technology in modern legal practice, noting that digitization has transformed research and advocacy. However, he drew a critical distinction between responsible, prepared use of professional tools such as laptops and the casual, last-minute resort to mobile phones. The Court took note that in previous cases, similar incidents had occurred, where mobile devices of advocates had to be seized to maintain decorum in the courtroom. Referring to those instances, the Court reiterated that repeated indulgence in such conduct would compel the judiciary to pass harsh orders against the erring advocates.

In its final order, the Court directed that a copy of the ruling be forwarded to the President and Secretary of the Bar Association so that members of the Bar may be apprised of the issue. The purpose of this circulation is to ensure that the professional community takes corrective steps and sensitizes its members to the seriousness of the matter. The Court cautioned that if lawyers continue to adopt the practice of using mobile phones during hearings to update themselves through artificial intelligence, Google searches, or other online platforms, the judiciary would have no option but to resort to punitive measures.

The Court’s decision can be viewed not merely as a disciplinary warning but also as a broader commentary on the standards of professional conduct required in the legal profession. By stressing preparation, diligence, and respect for court decorum, the judgment reinforces the ethical framework within which advocates are expected to function. Moreover, it acknowledges the evolving role of technology while setting clear boundaries on how and when such tools may be utilized in judicial proceedings.

Analytical Perspective:

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court resonates with a long-standing tradition of courtroom discipline. Historically, the sanctity of the courtroom has always demanded meticulous preparation, decorum, and respect for the judicial process. In an age where technology pervades every aspect of life, including law, it is inevitable that new challenges emerge. The Court’s approach reflects a measured balance—it does not reject technology outright, but insists on structured, responsible, and professional usage. By differentiating between laptops/iPads and mobile phones, the Court recognizes that some devices are designed and utilized as professional tools, while others are seen as personal or casual gadgets not fit for courtroom advocacy.

This ruling also highlights an important principle: that the judiciary must not only be efficient but must also appear dignified. If proceedings are stalled while advocates fumble with their phones, the very credibility of the justice system suffers. By disciplining the Bar and reminding advocates of their duties, the Court upholds the constitutional value of speedy justice under Article 21. At the same time, it draws attention to the fact that professionalism in advocacy requires anticipation, preparation, and presentation rather than last-minute improvisation.