The long-drawn courtroom drama over lawyers’ dress codes
Universities are doing away with the colonial era dress code for convocations, lawyers await a verdict on their demand to do away with black coats
It's not only about asserting identity or removing the symbols of slavery. It's also to do with the country’s climate and that is why lawyers have been debating a change in their dress code. The pertinent question remains, if not black coat, gown and band, which gives them some sense of authority and dignity, then what?
For the academic world, the need to change the dress code for convocations in universities was first mooted by former President the late APJ Abdul Kalam.
Kalam said that we should have our own dress codes for convocations instead of gowns of the colonial era. The University Grants Commission (UGC) later issued an advisory in 2015, suggesting the universities should opt for handloom fabric for ceremonial dresses or for special occasions like convocations. Recently, the health ministry also issued an advisory.
The first central university to shed the foreign inspired dress code was the Indian Institute of Technology at Banaras Hindu University (IIT-BHU) which opted for kurta-pyjama or kurta -dhoti for men and salwar- kameez or sarees for women.
Between 2015 and 2024, 70 of the approximately 90 central universities have reportedly changed their convocation dress codes. But clearly it is easier to make the change for one-time ceremonies and occasions. Lawyers and judges have to wear it every day in the court.
For years, lawyers have discussed changing what they wear to the court - black coats, robes and bands. Even PILs were filed in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court. The reasons cited were primarily the climatic conditions in the country, which makes it uncomfortable for lawyers to wear gowns or coats.
The Lucknow bench did issue notices to the central government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) in 2021 while rejecting the petition. The BCI informed the court that it has formed a five-member committee to have detailed deliberations with the bar and judiciary on their demand to redetermine the dress code of lawyers.
Paresh Misra, member, UP Bar Council, said, "We need to have a re-look at the dress code as the coat or the gown becomes unbearable in the sultry summer. Also, when we can change the criminal laws, we can change the names and places to assert our identity, why can’t we discuss suitable changes in the dress code of the lawyers.”
Rejecting the PIL in the Supreme Court in September 2024, the then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud suggested the petitioner to send representations to BCI and state bar councils while observing, “It is a matter of decorum--- you should be properly attired—you cannot argue in Kurta-Pyjama or Shirts and T-shirts.”
Senior lawyer of the High Court IB Singh recalled the 1973 Prayag Das vs Civil Judge Bulandshahr case when a petitioner claiming to be a crusader for securing recognition of Indian attire dhoti- kurta sent notices to the high court, the office of the district judge in Bulandshahr, and Bar Councils of India and UP on Feb 5, 1973 to the effect that he shall be appearing in dhorti-kurta. On February 17, 1973 he appeared in the court in dhoti-kurta and gown. The civil judge then passed order that since the applicant was not in proper dress, he refuses permission to record his appearance in the court. There is in fact of trail of litigations demanding change in the dress code, which will require an amendment in the Advocates Act that prescribes the dress code.
However, not many may agree with the demand for dhoti-kurta as the courtroom dress. In India, a lawyer's dress code is administered by the Bar Council of India Rules laid down under Chapter IV in the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, every advocate in India has to wear a black robe or coat over a white shirt crowned at the neck with a white band.
IB Singh said: "“The matter has been discussed at length; lawyers have also demanded it from time to time as the coat becomes unbearable in the summer. South Africa has already made changes in their dress code. Here, we can also replace the prescribed coat, gown and band with some suitable and sober dress like suit and tie by an amendment in the Advocates Act. It can’t be casual. If the issue is also to shed the British-era dress code, then why not replace My Lord with Sir or Honourable?”
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, ended his brilliant article on the subject in Bar and Bench dated April 25, 2020, “And Yes! just visualise the great Nani Palkhiwala arguing Keshavananda Bharti case in a kurta-pyjama (even if neatly washed and meticulously ironed and pressed). All scholarly, intellectual and erudite arguments of living legends like K. Parasaran, Fali Nariman, K.K.Venugopal and Soli Sorabjee may perhaps lose part of its shine if they chose to argue before the court in a Safari suit. A lawyer’s attire of a coat, silk gown and neck band is not just a bagatelle. It’s where our distinctive oneness, professional dignity and grandeur lie.”
Many lawyers like Nagendra Sharma in Delhi believe the dress brings in dignity, discipline and differentiation. He said the world over, there is uniformity in the lawyers' dress but some suitable changes could be made keeping in view the weather.
Senior advocate and former additional advocate general of the state Bulbul Godiyal said, “ We are living in India where the temperatures are mostly warm or hot, with a huge dress paraphernalia, it becomes bothersome and bogs one down with less efficiency and output at work. The dress worn by judges and lawyers are also a sign of British imperialism and sign of being subservient and must be done away with keeping in tune with the changing times.
It may be mentioned here that In February 1685, when King Charles 11 of England died, people wore a gown as a symbol of mourning. It’s also believed that wearing a wig and gown awarded a degree of anonymity to lawyers and judges. There is history behind the use of gowns, band, coat, and wig.
To build a consensus on the subject could be more challenging than the decision on the dress code just as the bench could be divided on the practice of addressing judges in the courtroom by archaic terms -- "My Lord or Lordship". Some have suggested "honourable court" as more appropriate in the higher courts and "Sir and Madam" in lower courts.
Although the government is unlikely to interfere with the bar and bench decision on the dress code, the day may not be very far when it may actualise giving much relief to sweating lawyers in courts.