Kamta Nath Seth JUDGMENT
Mahesh Narain Shukla, J.
1. The petitioner, an Advocate practising in the Mofussil Courts at Bulandshahr, takes exception to the dress prescribed for Advocates and challenges the power to impose any fetters on the ground of dress on an Advocate's right to practice in the courts in this State. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the impugned orders of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr (respondent No. I) preventing him from appearing in his court and also Rule 615, General Rules (Civil), 1957 be quashed and that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued "directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in their courts as an Advocate wearing Dhoti, Kurta and gown as his dress."
2. The petitioner claims to have launched a crusade for securing recognition to Dhoti and Kurta 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 Sessions and Civil Courts and pleaders appearing before them shall wear a buttoned up coat, achkan or sherwani of a black colour. They may wear an open neck coat of the same colour instead, but if they are not entitled to use bands, they shall wear a black tie with it During the summer the colour neednot be black and a coat, achkan or sherwani of a light colour may be worn. With the coat, trousers and with the achkan or sherwani, chooridar pyjama or trousers shall be worn. Ladies appearing before the Civil Courts as pleaders shall wear a black or a white sari and blouse.
"They shall also wear distinctive costumes as indicated below:--
(i) Presiding Officers: a gown, made after the pattern of Queen's Counsel's gown of black silk or stuff, with bands;
(ii) Advocates: a gown similar to a barrister's gown with bands; and
(iii) Pleaders and Vakils: a gown similar to the gown worn by presiding officers, but Without sleeves and bands.
If it is desired to wear a headdress, a turban may be worn."
4. The petitioner's contention is that the above rule is no longer good law in view of the rules framed by the High Court and the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, In the alternative the argument was that the dress worn by the petitioner on 17-2-1973 before the respondent No. 1 did not contravene the said rule and that at all events the dress prescribed by that rule was arbitrary and derogatory to national esteem and Indian culture.
5. There are two provisions of the Advocates Act which may be relevant in this connection. Section 34 confers on the High Court the power "to make rules" laying down the conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto. Sub-section (3) thereof provides:-........