The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dress regulations for advocates appearing before tribunals and authorities, as outlined in the Advocates Act and the rules framed by the High Court and the Bar Council of India, do not mandate the wearing of bands and Advocates' Gown, making such insistence misconceived and uncalled for.

An advocate as defined in S.2(1) (a) of the Advocates Act 25 of 1961 (the Act), has to conform to regulations in the matter of robes. S.34 of the Act enables the High Court to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court and in the courts subordinate thereto. Power is also conferred by S.49(1)(gg) on the Bar Council of India to make rules prescribing the form of dresses or robes to be worn by an advocate appearing before any court, or tribunal.

2. The High Court of Kerala has, in exercise of the powers vested in it under S.34, framed rules dated July 10,1969 laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court of Kerala, and in the courts subordinate thereto. Rule 12of these rules prescribes the dress to be worn by an advocate, and runs as under:

"12. Advocates appearing in Court shall wear the following dress. (1) Advocates other than lady advocates:-

(a) Black buttoned-up coat (chapkan, achkan or sherwani), Barrister's or Bachelor of Laws' gown, and bands, or

(b) Black open collar coat, white shirt, white collar, stiff or soft, with Barrister's or Bachelor of Laws gown and bands.

(2) Lady Advocates:-

Regional dress of subdued colour with Barrister's or Bachelor of laws' gown, white collar, stiff or soft, and bands."

Some doubt was expressed at the hearing of the case as to whether this rule could apply to advocates appearing in criminal courts, as the rules of which it forms part appear as Appendix III to the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice. I do not however find any room for doubt as the rule does not make any distinction between civil and criminal courts, and therefore, the dress regulations prescribed by this court must apply equally for appearance before the civil and the criminal courts.

3. The Bar Council of India has in its turn framed rules regarding dresses or robes to be worn by Advocates. These rules appear in Chapter IV of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, and run thus:

"CHAPTER IV

Form of Dresses or Robes to be worn by advocates (Rules under S.49(1)(gg) of the Act)

Advocates appearing in the Supreme Court, High Courts, 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 shirt, 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 and 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 Courts other than the Supreme Court, High Court, District Court, Sessions Court or City Civil Court a black tie may be worn instead of bands."

4. The original petition is consequent on the insistence by the second respondent, the joint Commissioner of Excise, Trivandrum, before whom the petitioner Advocate appeared in an appeal arising under the Abkari Act, that the petitioner should wear appropriate robes before he could be heard. It is stated that he refused to hear the petitioner's arguments in the appeal unless he put on the "uniform of the advocate" with bands and Advocates' gown. The petitioner thereupon filed this original petition challenging the said demand.

5. Even at the outset, it has to be stated that the original petition, so far as the petitioner is concerned, has become irrelevant, and does not require any decision at this distance of time. But I am dealing with the matter in vie