( 1 ) ALONG with two other advocates has filed CW no. 647/2001 seeking a mandamus for enforcement of Chapter IV of Bar Council of india Rules 1975 framed under S. 49 (l) (gg) of the Advocates Act 1961, which prescribes the form of dress or robe to be worn by advocates. An order of restraint is also sought against the senior advocates from wearing what Is described as the Queens Counsel (QC), gown contrary to the above rule. The petitioners case in 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 coat or jacket decorated with frills and fineries, to make out a different class of advocates.

( 2 ) CW No. 1959/2001 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 wearing the Queens counsel 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 of promoting ethical standards in the profession and to ensure the availability of legal services to the economically weak sections of the society. Notices to show cause in these two writ petitions were Issued and counter affidavits have been filed.

( 3 ) MR. N. N. Keswani appeared for the petitioner in both the abovementloned writ petitions and Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva appeared for Bar Council of India.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions Mr. N. N. Keswani urged that all advocates whether senior or junior deserve to be treated equally by the courts and there ought to be no discrimination amongst them even in the matter of dress. He submitted that the Bar Council of india had framed the rules in Chapter IV under S. 49 (l) (gg) of the Advocates Act 1961 prescribing the form of dress. The said rule is in the following terms :-

CHAPTER IV

FORM of Dresses or robes to be worn by advocates (rule under S. 49 (1) (gg) of the act)

ADVOCATES, appearing in the Supreme court, High Court, Subordinate Courts, Tribunals or Authorities shall wear the following as part of their dress which shall be sober and dignified :-

ADVOCATES other than lady Advocates

1. (a) A black buttoned up coat, chapkan, achkan, black sherwani and white bands with Advocates Gowns, or

(B) a black open breast coat, white collar stiff or, soft, and white bands with Advocates gowns.

IN either case long trousers (white, black striped or grey) or Dhoti.

LADY 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 ) 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 rule does not prescribe a different dress for a senior advocate, than that for an advocate. Thus there was no justification for a senior advocate to wear a gown different and distinct from the normal gown worn by all other advocates. Learned counsel submits that the wearing of a gown with its overflowing arms, embroidery and frills, place the Senior Advocate at a distinct advantage. He submits that it sub-consciously creates a bias In favour of a senior advocate, which often manifest itself either in terms of accommodation for adjournments, prior hearing or urgent hearing, which senior advocates get from the Court as compared to the other advocates. Counsel submits that this creates an Impression among the