Honble YADAV, J.–In the present bail application, the Court is called upon to decide at first instance as to whether Shri Ved Pal Shastri, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant, is entitled to be given audience as an Advocate, wearing `Dhoti.

(2). It is to be observed at the outset that after liquidating ego, with sense of divinity, the members of Bar and Bench both are to act as role model upholding the supremacy of rule of law. This Court can neither afford craving for particular dress by Advocates against the statutory provisions prescribed under law, while giving audience in a case, nor it can afford aversion of wearing `Dhoti by an Advocate, while addressing the Court, if statutory Rules relating to dress of Advocates prescribed Dhoti as sober dress. The only concern of this Court, is to see that the Court must act and function in clean ambience of law, detaining the confidence of general public at large and litigant public in particular that supremacy of rule of law is maintained in courts of law, with poor and rich high and low men of status and rank alike with even handed and no one whosoever he may be is treated above the rule of law.

(3). Courts or Tribunals, before allowing a person to argue a case on behalf of other, are to be objectively satisfied that person appearing in a case on behalf of other person, is enrolled as a Senior Advocate or an as Advocate, in the roll of the Bar Council of the State and is also wearing prescribed proper sober dress.

(4). The controversy involved in the present bail application at the first instance gravities and centres round the wearing of Dhoti by the advocate of accused-applicant, therefore, I would like to confine my discussion only relating to dress of Advocates while appearing in Courts or Tribunal.

(5). In State of Rajasthan, provisions are made by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in exercise of its general rule making power under Article 225 and 227 of the Constitution, along with rules relating to dress of advocates which deserves to be mentioned in brief for effective adjudication of the controversy involved. The Rajasthan High Court, in exercise of the general rule making power, conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling it in that behalf and with the approval of the Governor of Rajasthan, has made General Rules (Civil), 1986, wherein, u/Rule 491, court- dresses for officers and lawyers are prescribed, which reads thus:-

``491. Court dress for officers and lawyers,- The following distinctive costume shall be worn by Presiding Officers of Civil Courts and by advocates and pleaders practising in such courts:-

Black coat achkan with bands.

(6). The aforesaid Rule 491 of the General Rules (Civil), has been amended by Rajasthan High Court which reads thus:-

``491-Court dress for Officers and lawyers : The following distinctive costume shall be worn by Presiding Officers of the Civil Courts and by Advocates and pleaders practising in such Courts:-

Black Coat (Buttoned up or of open collar) or achkan with bands. With a black coat, white shirt and white/black and white striped trousers and with the achkan, a churidar pajama or white/black and white striped trousers shall be worn. The lady Presiding Officers and lady Advocates, appearing before the Civil Courts, shall wear a white saree without border, or with sober border and white blouse, or white salwar kurta, along with open neck or open collar black coat with white bands.

(7). The aforesaid amended General Rules (Civil), relating to court-dresses for Officers and Advocates, is made enforceable with effect from 29.7.99, from the date of publication in Rajasthan Gazette.

(8). It is to be noticed that the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, again, in exercise of its power, under Article 227 of the Constitution and all other powers, enabling it in that behalf, with the approval of Governor of Rajasthan, has made revised rules, known as General Rules (Criminal), 1980. The H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document