TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from wearing what is described as the Queens Counsel (QC), gown contrary to the above rule. The petitioners case brief is that the relevant rule prescribes the same dress for all advocates. Senior advocates therefore cannot wear the QC gown as also the short cost or jacket decorated with frills and fineries, to make out a different class of advocates. 2. CW No. 1959 of 2001 has been filed by the Lawyers Reformist Forum, through its president Shri K.L. Rathee, seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the senior advocates from wearing the QC gown, contrary to the Bar Council Rule and to direct all advocates including senior advocates to wear the dress or robe as prescribed under the rule. The forum claims to be a society with the object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Advocates 2. ( a ) black and full or half sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar, stiff or soft, with white bands with Advocates Gowns : ( b ) sarees or long skirts (white, or black or any mellow or subdued colour without any print or design) or Flare (white, black or black striped or grey) : Provided that the wearing of Advocates gown shall be optional except when appearing in the Supreme Court or in a High Court : Provided further that in Court other than Supreme Court, High Court, District Court, Sessions Court or City Civil Court a black tie may be worn instead of bands." 5. The learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that dress prescribed to be worn by advocate is a common one. The rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o urged that the wearing of different gowns by the seniors could not be justified on the basis of tradition as the rule framed by the Bar Council of India was under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, which is of recent origin. 6. The Bar Council of India in the counter affidavits filed in response to the writ petitions has averred that there is no cause of action for the petitions. There is no legitimate grievance of the petitioners. It is claimed that the Advocates Act makes and recognises a distinction between the senior advocates and other advocates. The rule framed by the Bar Council of India only prescribes the dress, which is to be worn. It does not prescribe the design of the gown or the coat. It is stated that the distin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, cannot be questioned or assailed as discriminatory or violative of article 14 of the constitution of India. The plea of the petitioner that a bias is created in favour of a senior advocate, who wears a gown with frills or overflowing arms or on account of the design of the coat, in the mind of the judge is without any supporting evidence or factual foundation and deserves to be outrightly rejected. 8. It may be noted that on almost contemporaneous grounds a chal- lenge had been made to the vires of section 16 of the Advocates Act in CW No. 1011 of 2001. The said writ petition had also been argued by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.N. Keswani, who had assailed section 16 creating two classes of advocates namely senior advocate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
