To Robe or Not to Robe

What would you say, if you see a person in suit and a tie in scorching heat of May (45° C) or the humid climate of July? Is there any one? Think again. There are many. Their reputation is neither envied in this world not their fate thereafter. Yes, we the lawyers. Instead of suit it is combination. And in the place of tie it is band and top it of, there is a gown.  Historically speaking, wigs were first used as personal adornment and not for any other purpose. Barristers, started wearing them in the beginning of eithteenth century. According to Lord Denning (What next in law), "It conceals the personality and the bald heads.....It is mark of authority and source of respect". Good reasons, many need them. Bands, weepers, bibs, neck cuff or collar cuffs came to be worn by Barristers around the same time. "Counsel......seem to take great pride in the wearing of collar cuffs whose purpose, I have been told, is to wipe tears after an emotional plea......Perhaps (due to this) collar cuffs (were).......later known as weepers" — wigs and weepers by George Joseph.  When British came to India, they along with their legal system, also brought lawyer's attire — And when they left, they along with their finest legacy — the legal system — bequeathed black coats, bands and gowns. Dress among legal fraternity was often governed by traditions. High Courts have also made rules in this regard. Normally in case of male members apart from other things, they require Black-buttoned up coat, open collar coat, Achkan or sherwani with bands and gown. Under some rules female members were relieved of wearing coats at least, what about head dress ? Is wig a head dress ?  Wigs have become obsolete in India. They are neither worn by Judges nor by Advocates, except, may be by Judges on ceremonial occasions — (Thank goodness what a relief; they are still worn in England by Judges and Barristers.) Traditionally English head dress (Hat, Cap etc.) is not worn inside a building. They have never been worn inside the court. But what about Indian head dresses. According to Hindu tradition, covering one's is head is a show of respect. Indian head dress can always be worn inside the Courts. The members of legal fraternity (including the presiding Officers) have always been wearing Turbans or Safas — a sight quite common during British Raj, though no longer so common.  It is not that efforts were not made to legislate on legal profession earlier. But the comprehensive Act — The Advocates Act — was enacted in 1961. S.34 of the Act gives power to the High Court to lay down conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practise. Different High Courts already had rules or have since made rules prescribing dress for Advocates. S. 49(l)(b) permits the Bar Council of India to make rules for the conduct and etiquette to be observed by Advocates. Bar Council of India has framed R. 5 under S. 49(l)(c) of the Act, to the effect that an Advocate shall appear in court at all times only in the prescribed dress and his appearance shall always be presentable. It does not prescribe any dress. Different rules made by the High Courts and the traditions followed by them may be irrelevant now. The Advocates Act has been amended (Act No. 60 of 1974) S. 49(l)(ga) has been added. It permits the Bar Council to frame rules about dress to be worn by Advocates with regard to the climatic conditions. The Bar Council has made a rule. It also permits dhoti to be worn. It provides for black coat, Achkan or Sherwani with bands for all and gown being optional for Advocates appearing before courts apart from Supreme Court and the High Courts.  Let us come back to the original question? Why should one continue to wear coat, bands and gown in a climate totally unsuited for this attire? Just because it is suited to British climate and we have been wearing them. British themselves are having doubts about it. Some have been giving reasons for the continuance of robes, "the uniform is also a permanent reminder of professional discipline, not a guarantee of good behaviour but a great aid to it........The robes of Judges......speak of continuity of development of responsibility. They remind him that he is not an isolated individual acting for himself alone, here today and gone tomorrow"........" Topolsk's, legal Land in the Indian context some answers were provided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shukla in Prayag Das v. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr' (Reported in AIR 1974 All 133). Prayag Das, an Advocate, was debarred by Civil Judge for appearing in Dhoti. He filed writ petition to justify his stand. Allahabad High Court rules for subordinate courts, by necessary implication, excluded wearing of Dhoti. In para 18 of the report, the court, about the necessity of dress says "In the first place they distinguish an Advocate from litigant. In the second place it induces a seriousness of purpose and sense of decorum........conducive to the dispensation of justice.....If rule is relaxed the Advocates may start dressing more scantily and even indiscreetly."  This may be sufficient reason to uphold a rule. But is it sufficient from not relieving us of this burden on administrative side. Should we continue to have insults or black coats, bands and gown. At least advocates appearing in their personal capacities have always disrobed AIR 1973 Mys 127; (1961) 1 All: ER 319. "Robes are convenient in normal circumstances as indication of the functions of those engaged in proceedings as enhancing the formality and dignity of grave occasion...they also level visual differences of age, sex and clothing and so aid concentration on the real issue without distractions. But robes are hot essential and the court may dispense with them where there are good reasons. Jurisdiction is neither conferred not exluded by mere matters of attire." Megarry, J. in St. Ednundsbury & Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v. Clark, (1973) 2 All ER 1155. The court thought it to be "unduly burden some to all the concerned. If they were required to be robed in the usual way merely for the purpose of hearing the evidence, one witness.....and.......there (could) ......be difficulties as (to) the provisions of suitable robing room". Well if this is sufficient reason to dispense with coat gown and bands, then why should Advocates continue to wear them during summers at places where temperature is more than 40°C. There is no earthly reason to do it except that it was so, done in England. This dress may be fine in J. & K. or H.P. or some parts of U.P. but not at all suitable for most of the country during, summers.  Well should we or shouldn't we ? There is no doubt that "From a purely practical point of view, they (robes) are great levellers, so far as the Bar is concerned. In robes the most poverty-striken junior will not be put out of countenance by any man in court and will not be at any disadvantage in the face of the opulent confidence of a Savile Row suit on a fashionable opponent" — Topolsk's "Legal Land". But is it necessary to prescribe black coat, bands and gown during summers ? Some other dress in accord with the summer climate may be provided. Rule framed by Bar Council of India may not be held ultra vires of S. 49(l)(ga) but it, undoubtedly, is not in line with it. What kind of robes should be provided for? Wouldn't it be lovely to have a fashion show to select one. Alas, we the lawyers, are too conservative. Let me make few suggestions without a fashion parade. A safari-short sleeve, sober colour-suit is an excellent idea. May be short sleeve shirt, tucked in trousers (Army style-of course in different colours) is an equally good one. We may also retain gown to be, worn on top of it to indicate that the person concerned is an Advocate or an advocate may also wear name plates to indicate the same. The time has come when we must bid good bye to black coat, bands and gown, the last signs of British legacy. If we have to inherit, we better inherit their independence of Bar and Judiciary rather than bands, gowns and black coats.

Author Name: Hon’ble Justice Yatindra Singh