2002 (7) TMI 563 - HC - Companies Law

Senior Advocates' Gown Tradition Upheld: Merit-Based Recognition Not Discriminatory

JR. Parashar Versus Bar Council of India

The court upheld the tradition of senior advocates wearing a distinct gown similar to the Queens Counsel (QC), dismissing challenges against alleged bias ... Form of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates Issues:Enforcement of Bar Council of India Rules on advocate dress code, distinction in dress for senior advocates, alleged bias in favor of senior advocates, challenge to senior advocate gown tradition.Enforcement of Bar Council of India Rules on advocate dress code:The petitioners sought a mandamus for the enforcement of Chapter IV of Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, which prescribe the dress or robe to be worn by advocates. The rule does not differentiate between senior advocates and other advocates in terms of dress code. The petitioners argued that all advocates should be treated equally in court attire. The Bar Council of India contended that the rule only prescribes the dress to be worn and not the design of the gown or coat. The court noted that the rule does not specify a different dress for senior advocates, maintaining a common dress code for all advocates.Distinction in dress for senior advocates:The petitioners challenged the tradition of senior advocates wearing the Queens Counsel (QC) gown, arguing that it creates a bias in favor of senior advocates. They claimed that the distinction in gown design places senior advocates at an advantage, influencing court treatment and public perception. The Bar Council of India defended the tradition, stating it is based on long-standing practice and not opposed to public policy or law. The court recognized the distinction between senior advocates and other advocates under the Advocates Act, with senior advocates being conferred an honor based on their ability and standing.Alleged bias in favor of senior advocates:The petitioners contended that the unique gown worn by senior advocates subconsciously influences court decisions in favor of senior advocates. They argued that this practice contradicts the impartiality symbolized by the blindfolded Lady Justice. However, the court found no factual basis or evidence supporting the claim of bias in favor of senior advocates due to their gown design. The court rejected the argument that the gown design creates an unfair advantage for senior advocates in court proceedings.Challenge to senior advocate gown tradition:The petitioners questioned the continuation of the tradition where senior advocates in India wear a gown similar to the Queens Counsel (QC). They argued that this practice stems from British colonial rule and imperialism. The court, however, upheld the tradition, stating that once the distinction between advocates and senior advocates is recognized under the Advocates Act, the wearing of a distinct gown by senior advocates cannot be deemed discriminatory. The court emphasized that the conferment of designation as a senior advocate is based on the court's recognition of ability and standing, justifying the tradition of senior advocates wearing a different gown.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the tradition of senior advocates wearing a different gown, emphasizing that the distinction between senior advocates and other advocates is recognized under the Advocates Act, and the tradition of senior advocates wearing a unique gown is not discriminatory.