Lawyer appears before HC wearing Jeans: Supreme Court says, “Advocate is expected to come to the Court in proper attire..”

In a recent order, the Supreme Court (SC) of India disposed of an SLP (Special Leave Petition) filed by an advocate challenging the Gauhati High Court order that expelled him from the court for wearing jeans within the court campus. While hearing the matter, the top court reminded that every advocate before the court must appear in the proper attire as mentioned in the Rules. The case arose when the Gauhati HC called for the police personnel to de-court the lawyer from the court campus. The lawyer approached the Supreme Court against the decision of the HC stating that the High Court had no authority to remove him from the court campus with police assistance. Before approaching the top court, the lawyer filed an application seeking to recall the order to de-court him for wearing jeans before the Gauhati HC which was refused. The HC iterated, “If jeans can be worn in Court, then the applicant may next ask why he shall not be permitted to appear in Court in “torn” jeans, “faded” jeans, jeans with “printed patches”, which are considered to be fashionable, or why he should not be allowed to appear in black track pant, or black pajamas merely because the Gauhati High Court Rules has not specifically excluded those.”

The bench constituting Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed “...instead of calling for the police personnel, the Court should have simply adjourned the matter and asked the petitioner, who was the practicing advocate, to leave the Court, more particularly, when he was neither discourteous nor unruly, rather he had apologized to the Court.” Further, the bench expugned the remarks made by the Gauhati HC, “Therefore, the Court had to call for the police personnel to de-court him outside the High Court campus.” Moreover, the top court said, “It is needless to say that every advocate is expected to come to the Court in proper attire as per the Rules and behave in the Court.” After noting that the matter was between the court and the advocate; therefore, the bench ordered not to issue notice to the respondents (State of Assam) and disposed of the present SLP.