The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed a 2017 notification issued by the Registrar of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which made it mandatory for advocates appearing before them to wear gowns.
A Bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq said that the NCLT notification lacked jurisdiction and authority, and had no basis in law.
The Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, according to the Court, clearly stated that “only high courts” had the authority to prescribe dress codes for lawyers.
Additionally, it stated that wearing a black gown was only mandatory when appearing before the Supreme Court and benches of the High Courts, not before lower courts and tribunals.
“From the conjoint reading of Section 34 of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, extracted above, it is clear that only the High Courts can frame rules for dress code for the appearance of the Advocates before it, the courts and Tribunals, subordinate to it. In absentia, the rules in chapter IV of the Bar Council of India Rules shall prevail and the Tribunals have no authority to issue any instructions determining the dress code for the appearance of the advocates before it,” the order said.
The Bench was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a lawyer, R Rajesh, who appeared as a party-in-person.
Rajesh had filed an appeal against a circular issued by the NCLT Registrar on November 4, 2017.
He contended that the Registrar lacked the authority to impose a dress code on lawyers and that the circular at issue was ultra vires, or null and void. As a result, he urged the Court to overturn the circular on the grounds that it was illegal, arbitrary, and devoid of merit.
Advocate SR Raghunathan, who appeared on behalf of the BCI, supported the stand taken by the petitioner.
The High Court agreed with the petitioner’s arguments in its order. It stated that when statutes granted High Courts powers to prescribe dress codes, any instruction, direction, or advisory by the Tribunal, especially when it contradicted the statutory rules, was “ultra vires the Act.”
After the Court reserved its judgement on the PIL last month, the NCLT modified its 2017 circular and withdrew the gown directive on January 27 to ensure compliance with the Bar Council Rules.
The Court, however, stated that, despite being withdrawn and modified, the NCLT circular will be upheld.
