The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed its stance on the dress code for women advocates, ruling recently against the allowance of face coverings. This ruling came following the controversial appearance of a woman, identified as Syed Ainain Qadri, who claimed to be representing certain litigants on November 27, 2023, but appeared with her face covered.
Justice Rahul Bharti, presiding over the case, requested Qadri to remove her face cover for identification purposes. She resisted, asserting it was her fundamental right to maintain her facial concealment. Due to this refusal, the court declined to recognize her presence as legal counsel, as it could not confirm her identity. "This court does not entertain the appearance of the person identifying herself to be Advocate Ms. Syed Ainain Qadri as counsel for the petitioners as this Court has no basis/occasion to confirm her actual identity both as a person as well as professional," stated Justice Bharti's order.
Subsequently, the matter was raised for clarity on the dress code regulations governing women advocates, which prompted the court to direct the Registrar General to determine whether existing rules condone such attire. A report filed on December 5 confirmed the absence of any provisions permitting female lawyers to appear with their faces covered.
On December 13, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi referenced the Bar Council of India (BCI) dress code rules, emphasizing the necessity for maintaining decorum and professional identification within courtroom settings. Justice Kazmi stated, "It is nowhere stated in the rules...that any such attire is permissible for appearing before this Court." This reiteration underscored the need for clarity and adherence to prescribed professional standards for advocates.
The legal framework outlined by the BCI permits women to wear black full-sleeve jackets or blouses with white collars, along with white bands and black gowns. Other acceptable outfits include wearing sarees or traditional attire, but no mention exists for face coverings.
The Registrar's findings reinforced the High Court's ruling, clarifying the mandated dress code. The report stipulated regulations for both upper and lower garments, specifying attire colors and styles, and indicated circumstances where traditional wear might be appropriate. Importantly, the guidelines explicitly rule out veils as part of the customary courtroom attire.
After the court reviewed the regulations alongside the Registrar's insights, it adjourned the case which had been brought to them by Qadri and her fellow petitioners seeking relief from legal matters. The case was eventually moved forward by another attorney after the dismissal of Qadri's application.
Upon conclusion of the proceedings on December 13, the court decided to dismiss the petition, identifying available alternative remedies accessible to the petitioners.
Legal experts have pointed out the larger implications of the judgment, emphasizing its significance for maintaining professional standards within the judiciary, particularly concerning dress codes. The adherence to established regulations is seen not merely as procedural but as integral to upholding the dignity and order of court proceedings.
This ruling aligns with previous stipulations established by the BCI and serves as both a reminder and a caution for advocates to be mindful of their courtroom presentations. The court's vigilance highlights the importance of identity verification for attorneys to prevent possible misrepresentation or deception within the judicial system.
With these developments, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has officially set forth its position on the matter, reinforcing the existing guidelines governing legal attire and the expectations for professional conduct in courtrooms.
