9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as court dress. For that purpose he gave notice to the High Court, the District Judge, Bulandshahr and other Civil Judges of Bulandshahr, Ear Council, Uttar Pradesh, Bar Council of India and the two Bar Associations of Bulandshahr to the effect that he shall wear Dhoti and Kurta in courts from 5-2-1973. Pursuant to that object the petitioner chose to appear before the respondent No. I in Kurta and Dhoti in a consolidation reference on 17-2-1973. The learned Civil Judge passed order (Annexure 5) that since the applicant was not in proper dress he refused to permit him to put his appearance in his court. On an application moved by the petitioner's client the respondent No. 1 passed another order on 27-2-1973 (Annexure 7) affirming his previous order and holding that the petitioner shall not be entitled to put in appearance in the case until he appeared In the prescribed dress before the court. 3. The respondent No. 1 based his order on the provisions of Rule 615, General Rules (Civil), 1957, and held that the petitioner did not comply with the same and was, therefore, not permitted to appear in his court. The aforesaid rule runs as follows:-- 615. All presiding officers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practice and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to as an advocate in a Court. ..... (c) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates; ..... 7. The Bar Council of India framed rules under Section 49 of the Act. Rule 5 of the Rules provides:-- An Advocate shall appear in court at all times only in the prescribed dress, and his appearance that always be presentable. The preamble of the Rules is also significant and may be quoted. It says:-- An Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate. The Bar Council did not make any rule prescribing the dress. That was left to the High Court. Acting under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act the High Court framed rules of which Rule 12, which is relevant for the case, is to the following effect: 12. Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. For the purpose of regulating his appearance in court the High Court should be the appropriate authority to make rules and on a proper construction of Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act it must be inferred that the High Court has the power to make rules for regulating the appearance of Advocates and proceedings inside the courts. Obviously the High Court is the only appropriate authority to be entrusted with this responsibility. However, so far as the basic qualifications of an Advocate entitling him to practise without physically appearing in court, or disentitling him from doing so are concerned, the determination of such conditions must remain within the exclusive province of the Bar Council. The same division of functions is borne out by the difference in the language of the two provisions. Whereas Clause (ab) of Section 49 refers to the conditions subject to which an Advocate shall have the right to practice, Section 34(1) deals with the conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practise. The expression permitted to practise in the context can have only one meaning i.e., the right of physical appearance in Court. The word permitted refers to a parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed dress. In our opinion there was no need of prescribing penalty in Rule 12 inasmuch as the said rule was framed under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act and the penalty is embodied in the section itself. The High Court has merely to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in Courts. Such conditions have been laid down in Rule 12 and, therefore, in the event of non-fulfilment of those conditions the High Court or a Court subordinate thereto can refuse to an Advocate who wishes to appear before it. We have already held that the word practise in Section 34(1) implies physical appearance in Court. Withholding permission for such appearance is the penalty embedded in Section 34(1) itself. Moreover, when a condition is prescribed it' is meant for being observed not by its breach but by its compliance and there is implied authority to pass such incidental orders as may be essential to give effect to it. We have already referred to Rule 5 framed by the Bar Council which makes it imperative for an Advocate to appear in Court at all times only in the prescribed dress. The preamble of the rules framed by the Bar Council ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive costumes. According to this submission the only dress prescribed for Advocates is a gown similar to a barrister's with bands . This would be evidently putting an absurd construction on the rule because it is preposterous to imagine that an Advocate has merely to wear a gown with bands and is otherwise free to wear any dress on the rest of his body. The word they with which the second part of the rule opens is comprehensive to include Advocates in the first part of the rule as well. In other words, the dress prescribed in the first part of Rule 615 applies both to Advocates and pleaders and the second part of the rule only adds distinctive costumes to be respectively worn by Advocates and pleaders etc. Thus, it is quite clear that without combining the two parts of Rule 615 it is impossible to arrive at the complete dress of an Advocate. 13. We cannot accept the argument that Rule 615 has ceased to be operative after the enactment of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder. General Rules (Civil), 1957 were framed by the High Court in the exercise of the power conferred by the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se audience to him and the impugned orders are valid and legal. We are constrained to hold that under the existing provisions of law an Advocate cannot appear in Court, dressed in Dhoti and Kurla, even though he may be wearing a gown. 17. Sri V.C. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner made a scathing attack on the reasonableness of Rule 615 and said that it was arbitrary and capricious. The criticism is wide off the mark. The rationale of such rule is obvious. Justice can best be administered when legal proceedings are conducted with decorum and a certain degree of formality. The place of justice as Francis Bacon remarked, is a hallowed place, and those seeking its aid either for themselves or those whom they represent should so conduct them-selves as to uphold its dignity. The trappings of a Court room and the costume specially meant for the Court and its officers invest the Court with a sort of dignity which is not without its effect. The traditional prescribed dress of an Advocate gives him certain aloofness wherefrom his submission come with added force. As A.G. Gardener has so eloquently expressed, Dress , has its spiritual and moral reactions. It may seem absurd, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;The conflict, therefore, is not between national and foreign dress, but between trousers and the dhoti. For a settlement it must perhaps be referred to sartorial aesthetics and we are of opinion that if the gown is to remain, it would accord very unsatisfactorily with the dhoti. The superfluous cloth worn from the waist in massed folds is bound to get mixed up with the gown and make a mess, with the result that a learned advocate dressed in that fashion would look more an ungeometrical bundle of loose clothing than a neat and well trimmed figure. 20. Lastly, the learned counsel rested the petition on the ground of mala fide. We have perused the averments made in the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof. We are not satisfied on the material placed before us that any case of mala fide is made out. If the Court possessed the legal power to prevent the petitioner from appearing before it otherwise than in prescribed dress, the exercise of that power would not be vitiated merely for the reason that the same was not exercised against all or other members of the Bar practising at Bulandshahr. 21. In the result this writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
