Today(17th Sept), The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a PIL seeking to exempt lawyers from wearing the black coat and gown during summer, stressing the need to maintain courtroom decorum. The petition, filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, was rejected by a bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(17th Sept), The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to exempt lawyers from wearing the traditional black coat and gown in courts during the summer months. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the dress code to maintain courtroom decorum.
The petition, filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi in his personal capacity, aimed to provide relief for lawyers from wearing the mandatory black coat and gown during India’s sweltering summer season. However, the court, led by a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, firmly rejected the plea.
“Ultimately it is a matter of decorum. You should be properly attired,”
– remarked Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud during the hearing.
The court underscored the importance of maintaining a formal dress code, especially in a professional environment like the courtroom.
The bench clarified that the dress code was not just a matter of custom but integral to the decorum and seriousness expected in court proceedings.
The Chief Justice further noted-
“You have to wear something. You cannot argue in ‘kurta-pajama’ or shorts and T-shirt also…”
The petitioner, Shailendra Mani Tripathi, argued that wearing heavy coats and gowns during the summer months, particularly in states with extreme heat, was uncomfortable for lawyers. He suggested that an exemption could be made during summer to make the attire more suitable for the climate.
However, Chief Justice Chandrachud responded by saying that the climate across different states in India varies significantly.
He pointed out-
“The climate in Rajasthan is not similar to Bangalore,”
highlighting the diversity of weather conditions across the country. This made it clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to dress code exemptions might not be feasible.
Although the Supreme Court dismissed the PIL, it did offer some relief to the petitioner. The court allowed Mr. Tripathi to submit a formal representation to the Bar Council of India (BCI), state bar councils, and the central government for further consideration of his request.
The court noted that the bar councils and relevant authorities could examine the issue and make appropriate decisions regarding any potential amendments to the current dress code.
“Let the respective bar councils take a decision on this,”
– stated Chief Justice Chandrachud.
This decision offers a path forward for Mr. Tripathi and other lawyers who may wish to see a change in the dress code during the summer months. By allowing the petitioner to present his case to the bar councils and the government, the court ensured that the issue could still be considered by the proper authorities.
As the Supreme Court bench remained firm in its stance that the petition was not fit for judicial intervention, Mr. Tripathi sought permission to withdraw the PIL. The court granted his request, and the petition was withdrawn without further hearing.
However, the court’s statements regarding the necessity of maintaining proper courtroom attire and decorum serve as a clear indication that any changes to the dress code will have to come from the bar councils or legislative amendments rather than through the judiciary.
The Bar Council of India plays a crucial role in setting and regulating the dress code for advocates in the country. The current dress code, which mandates the wearing of a black coat and gown, is designed to symbolize the dignity and seriousness of the legal profession.
By allowing the petitioner to submit his request to the BCI and state bar councils, the Supreme Court has left the door open for further discussion on the matter. However, any potential amendments will need to balance the comfort of lawyers with the need to maintain a formal and professional appearance in courtrooms across the country.