Lawyer’s Gown Is Only Optional and Not Mandatory Before Any Courts Other Than the Supreme Court or the High Courts: Madras HC

The Madras HC on Wednesday stated that the wearing of a gown is only optional and not mandatory before any courts other than the Supreme Court or the High Courts.

The bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq was dealing with the PIL for a writ of declaration to declare the Order passed by the second respondent, insofar as it relates to the imposition of dress code for advocates for appearance before the Tribunal.

In this case, the second respondent passed the impugned order which is in direct conflict with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed under Section 49 (1) (gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, in particular, the rules pertaining to the form of dresses or robes to be worn by Advocates. 

In the impugned, circular, reference was made to the earlier notification issued by the second respondent, in the exercise of the power conferred by Rule 51 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to the effect that “every authorised representative as provided in Section 432 of the Act shall appear before the Tribunal in his/her professional dress if any”.

The petitioner has no qualm or quarrel over the earlier notification inasmuch as an Advocate, who is a professional, will have to adhere to whatever dress code prescribed by the Bar Council of India, the Advocates Act and the Rules made thereunder. 

On the other hand, the second respondent invoked the power under Rule 51 of the NCLT Rules, which is exercisable only to regulate the procedures required to administer the Tribunal.

The bench noted that the form of dress or in other words, the dress code to be adhered by advocates, both male and female, before various Courts, Tribunals and forums, is explicit. The mandatory compliance required before the High Courts or Supreme Court has not been prescribed for other forums. There is a clear distinction. 

High Court after referring to a few judgments observed that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and authority, and has no basis in law. It is a trite legal position that the orders of the Tribunals, either judicial or administrative, are subject to judicial review of the High Courts, as they are subordinate to it. From the conjoint reading of Section 34 of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, extracted above, it is clear that only the High Courts can frame rules for dress code for the appearance of the Advocates before it, the courts and Tribunals, subordinate to it.