1973 (3) TMI 151 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 615, General Rules (Civil), 1957.
2. High Court's power to prescribe dress for advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.
3. Whether Rule 12 of the High Court rules is valid and enforceable.
4. Whether the prescribed dress code infringes on national esteem and Indian culture.
5. Whether the impugned orders are arbitrary or capricious.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 615, General Rules (Civil), 1957:
The petitioner challenged Rule 615, which prescribes a specific dress code for advocates, arguing that it is no longer valid in light of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the rules framed thereunder. The court held that Rule 615 is still operative and valid. It was framed under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which have an overriding effect. There is no inconsistency between Rule 615 and the rules framed under the Advocates Act; rather, they supplement each other and must be read together to provide a complete dress code for advocates.

2. High Court's Power to Prescribe Dress for Advocates Under the Advocates Act, 1961:
The petitioner argued that only the Bar Council of India has the power to prescribe dress for advocates under Section 49(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961. However, the court held that the High Court has the power to regulate the appearance of advocates in courts under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. The right to practice and the right to appear in courts are not synonymous. The High Court can make rules for regulating the appearance of advocates and proceedings inside the courts, which includes prescribing a dress code. Therefore, Rule 12 framed by the High Court prescribing dress for advocates is valid and enforceable.

3. Whether Rule 12 of the High Court Rules is Valid and Enforceable:
The petitioner contended that Rule 12 merely prescribes the dress for advocates but does not postulate any penalty for breach of that rule, making it directory and not mandatory. The court rejected this argument, stating that the use of the word "shall" in Rule 12 indicates its mandatory nature. The penalty for non-compliance is implied in Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, which allows the court to refuse audience to an advocate not wearing the prescribed dress. Therefore, Rule 12 is mandatory, and the court has the authority to enforce it.

4. Whether the Prescribed Dress Code Infringes on National Esteem and Indian Culture:
The petitioner argued that the prescribed dress code, which excludes Dhoti and Kurta, is derogatory to national esteem and Indian culture. The court found no merit in this argument, stating that trousers and paijamas have existed as respectable dress in India from ancient times and do not involve any violence to patriotic sentiment. The prescribed dress code serves a useful purpose by distinguishing advocates from litigants and the public, inducing a seriousness of purpose and a sense of decorum conducive to the dispensation of justice.

5. Whether the Impugned Orders are Arbitrary or Capricious:
The petitioner claimed that the impugned orders preventing him from appearing in court in Dhoti and Kurta were arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the orders were valid and legal, as the petitioner violated the prescribed dress code. The court emphasized that the prescribed dress code is essential for maintaining decorum and dignity in the court, and non-compliance with it justifies the refusal of audience. The court also dismissed the argument of mala fide, stating that the exercise of legal power would not be vitiated merely because it was not exercised against all members of the Bar.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed in limine, with the court upholding the validity and enforceability of Rule 615 and Rule 12, and affirming the High Court's power to prescribe dress for advocates. The prescribed dress code was found to be reasonable, necessary for maintaining decorum, and not derogatory to national culture. The impugned orders were deemed valid and legal.