A representation to the Chief Justice of India urges discontinuation of colonial-era judicial wigs and scarlet robes in constitutional courts. The plea calls for adopting Bharatiya ceremonial norms to reflect India’s “civilisational self-respect” and sovereign constitutional identity.
A representation has been sent to the Surya Kant requesting the Indian judiciary to reconsider the continued use of colonial-era judicial attire such as white wigs and scarlet ceremonial robes in constitutional courts. The representation calls for discontinuing these British-era symbols and adopting ceremonial practices that better reflect India’s identity as a sovereign republic.
The representation was submitted by Advocate Aditya Kashyap, who highlighted that certain colonial traditions still continue in some constitutional courts. He referred specifically to the practice in the Calcutta High Court where the Chief Justice is reported to wear a scarlet ceremonial robe and white judicial wig inherited from British judicial traditions during official ceremonial functions. According to the representation, recent reports mentioned that this attire was worn during ceremonial events held in January and March 2026.
In the document, Advocate Kashyap clarified that his representation is made with deep respect for the dignity and legacy of the Indian judiciary as well as the historic stature of the Calcutta High Court. At the same time, he emphasised that the issue should be viewed as a broader institutional question rather than criticism directed at any individual. In this context, he wrote that the representation is “a respectful but firm appeal that visible remnants of colonial authority still surviving in our constitutional courts be reconsidered in light of India’s constitutional maturity, civilisational self-respect, and sovereign republican identity.”
Kashyap further explained that the issue is not merely about dress or attire but about constitutional symbolism and the image projected by the country’s highest judicial institutions. He stated that courts in India derive their authority from the Constitution and the sovereignty of the people rather than from symbols inherited from colonial rule. In this regard, he wrote that such authority
“does not flow from the insignia of empire, nor from ceremonials shaped in a foreign monarchical order.”
Placing the issue within the broader constitutional journey of independent India, the representation pointed out that the country became independent on 15 August 1947 and formally adopted the Constitution on 26 January 1950, thereby becoming a sovereign democratic republic.
It also noted that India has now completed more than seventy-eight years of Independence and over seventy-six years as a constitutional republic. In this context, the representation argued that the continued use of colonial ceremonial attire cannot be dismissed as an insignificant historical tradition. According to Kashyap,
“it is an anachronism to We, the People of India.”
He further argued that a country which has politically freed itself from colonial rule should also reconsider the symbolic remnants of colonial authority in its public institutions. In this regard, he observed that
“a nation that has politically decolonised itself cannot remain indefinitely content with ceremonial colonialism in its highest institutions.”
The representation also specifically addressed the continued use of the white judicial wig, describing it as a symbol associated with British court culture rather than an Indian tradition of justice. Kashyap wrote that
“the white judicial wig, in particular, is not an Indian symbol of justice,” but “a historical artefact of British court culture, associated with hierarchy, distance, and imperial continuity.”
According to him, when such attire continues to be used in Indian courts—particularly constitutional courts—it may unintentionally convey a message that colonial traditions still carry prestige. In this regard, he stated that the continued use of such regalia sends a signal
“that prestige still inheres in colonial inheritance”.
The representation further pointed out that this symbolism appears even more difficult to justify when the country where these traditions originated has itself reduced their use in modern times. Kashyap wrote that the symbolism becomes especially questionable when
“the originating legal culture itself has substantially narrowed the use of such attire.”
The advocate also placed the issue within the broader discussion about decolonisation of institutions in India. In the representation, he referred to recent developments where national institutions have attempted to revive indigenous symbols of authority and governance. For example, he referred to the installation of the Sengol in the new Parliament building, noting that official statements described it as
“a sacred symbol of fair and equitable governance and as part of restoring the dignity of an indigenous emblem of public authority.”
According to Kashyap, such initiatives reflect a wider national effort to align public institutions with India’s own civilisational identity and cultural traditions rather than with symbols inherited from colonial rule. He suggested that the judiciary should also participate in this process. In this regard, he stated that
“the judiciary, of all institutions, should not lag in this regard.”
ALSO READ: Three British-Era Laws Replaced to Promote Speedy Justice: Amit Shah
The representation also referred to Indian philosophical traditions to argue that justice and legitimacy in India have historically not depended on ceremonial attire. Kashyap explained that from an Indian perspective the concept of justice has always been linked with moral principles rather than symbolic regalia. In this context, he stated that “from a Bharatiya point of view, justice has never depended upon regalia,” and further explained that in Indian traditions
“legitimacy flows from dharma, from restraint, from wisdom, from fairness, and from duty.”
He further elaborated that the moral foundation of justice is more important than ceremonial symbolism. According to the representation,
“the ideal of nyaya is moral before it is ceremonial,” and therefore “the court commands reverence because it embodies justice, not because it reflects the imagery of those who once ruled us.”
The advocate also noted that although colonial robes and wigs may have historical significance, that alone cannot justify their continued use in a modern constitutional republic. In this context, he remarked that colonial robes may be old but that does not automatically make them meaningful for present-day India. He wrote that “antiquity alone does not confer legitimacy.”
While referring to the prestige and historic importance of the Calcutta High Court, Kashyap suggested that the court could take a leadership role in this matter. According to him, the stature of the court would not diminish if colonial traditions are reconsidered. Instead, he argued that the court’s prestige would grow stronger if ceremonial practices are aligned with the spirit of an independent Constitution.
The representation also expressed hope that the Supreme Court will guide institutional reform in this area. Kashyap noted that the Supreme Court has often played an important role not only in deciding cases but also in shaping the direction of constitutional values and public institutions.
In this context, he wrote that the judiciary has consistently led the nation in defining constitutional principles and expressed hope that it will continue to guide the process of institutional reform.
He added that the judiciary could contribute to the ongoing process of decolonising Indian institutions while preserving dignity and tradition where appropriate. In this regard, he stated that the courts should work toward
“retaining what is dignified, but shedding what is merely an imperial residue”.
The representation also contains specific requests for institutional action. Kashyap urged that a thoughtful and formal decision be taken by the judiciary to discontinue the use of colonial-era wigs and scarlet ceremonial robes in constitutional courts across India.
He further requested that guidance or advisory norms be issued regarding the discontinuation of colonial-era regalia in ceremonial judicial functions. The representation also suggested that the Calcutta High Court may reconsider its current ceremonial practices and discontinue the tradition of the Chief Justice wearing a white judicial wig and scarlet robe on official occasions.
In addition, the advocate proposed the creation of a committee that could study and recommend appropriate alternatives rooted in Indian traditions and constitutional values. According to the representation, such a committee could suggest “dignified Bharatiya ceremonial norms, consistent with constitutional sobriety, judicial majesty, and civilisational rootedness” for constitutional courts across the country.
The representation concluded with the observation that after more than seventy-eight years of independence and over seventy-six years of functioning as a constitutional republic, India no longer needs to rely on ceremonial traditions inherited from colonial rule. Kashyap wrote that India
“need not continue to borrow the ceremonial language of empire.”
He further emphasised that the judiciary can maintain its dignity and solemnity while adopting practices that reflect India’s own constitutional and civilisational values. In this context, he concluded by stating that courts can remain
“solemn without being colonial, dignified without being derivative, and majestic without being alien to the civilisation in whose name justice is delivered.”
A copy of the representation has also been sent to the Droupadi Murmu, Narendra Modi, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on British-Era
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
