Advocates' dress code before tribunals cannot override statutory rules, and a compulsory gown requirement was set aside.

Advocates' dress code before the National Company Law Tribunal was governed by the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, under which gowns are optional except in the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Tribunal could not rely on the Companies Act, 2013, the NCLT Rules, 2016, or administrative provisions to override that statutory regime. Section 34 of the Advocates Act empowers only the High Court to frame practice conditions, and Rule 124 of the NCLT Rules separately requires authorised representatives to follow their own code of conduct. The impugned direction making gowns compulsory was therefore beyond jurisdiction, ultra vires, and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal had authority under the Companies Act, 2013 and the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to prescribe a dress code making gowns compulsory for advocates appearing before it, and whether the impugned direction was ultra vires the governing statutory framework.

Analysis: The field of dress code for advocates is governed by the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules made under Section 49(1)(gg) of that Act. Those rules make the wearing of gown optional except in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers only the High Court to frame rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate may practise in the High Court and subordinate courts. The Tribunal's reliance on Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, Rule 51 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and the administrative provisions in Rule 16(f) did not confer power to override the advocate dress regulations. Rule 124 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 itself requires authorised representatives to wear the dress prescribed in their code of conduct. The impugned direction was therefore beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory rules governing advocates.

Conclusion: The dress-code direction issued by the Tribunal was without authority of law and ultra vires, and the challenge to it succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside on the ground that the Tribunal lacked power to mandate a gown for advocates, and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute and governing advocates already prescribe the dress code, a statutory tribunal cannot, by administrative instruction or procedural power, impose a contrary dress requirement on advocates appearing before it.

---