An advocate appearing as a litigant in person is not entitled to argue with his robes based on the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is an Advocate and the writ petition has been designed as a Public Interest Litigation with a prayer to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that the Direct Benefit Transfer Scheme for Liquefied Petroleum Gas announced by the Union of India is inconsistent with public law and the constitutional requirements.

2. When the case was posted for admission on 17.03.2014, the petitioner appearing in person appeared with his robes. The petitioner was asked as to whether he being the petitioner in this writ petition would be entitled to argue with his robes. The petitioner insisted that he is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and in terms of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, in particular the Rules governing Advocates given in Appendix I of the Rules, is duty bound to wear Bands and Gown while appearing, failing which he would be contravening the statutory provisions and therefore, was entitled to represent the matter with his robes. On such insistent, this Court framed the following preliminary question for consideration:

“whether an Advocate is entitled to argue in a PIL with his robes on the ground that he being an advocate, is entitled to argue with his robes when he is a petitioner in person in a Public Interest Litigation.”

3. We have heard the petitioner on the above preliminary question and considered the matter.

4. An identical question came up for consideration in the case of T. Venkanna v. Hon’ble High Court of Mysore AIR 1973 Mys 127,wherein the petitioner was a practising Advocate, who offered himself for being considered by the High Court for recommendation to be appointed as a District Judge. Since he was not called for interview, he filed a writ petition before the then High Court of Mysore. The petitioner was not represented by counsel and he appeared in person and wanted to argue his own cause. The Division Bench which heard the matter informed him to disrobe himself and then address the Court. However, the petitioner insisted that he should be heard without being required to remove his gown. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner being an Advocate in his own cause, he is not entitled to exercise the privilege of an Advocate and address the Court from “the Bar”. An application was filed by the petitioner to recall the said order. In the said application, the petitioner was represented by a counsel and the Division Bench informed the counsel that if the petitioner complies with the directions of the Court and argues without his robes, he will be permitted to do so, after recalling the earlier order. The counsel who appeared in the said application informed the Court that he has been engaged only to argue the application and not the main matter for admission and the petitioner is not prepared to argue unless the Bench permits him to argue with his robes on. There upon, the question as to whether an Advocate appearing as litigant in person whether would be entitled to argue with his robes on from the Advocates’ table was taken up for consideration. In fact, a some what similar contention as raised by the petitioner herein was raised before the High Court of Mysore, though not to the extent pleaded therein. Before the High Court of Mysore, reliance was placed on Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and submitted that every Advocate whose name is entered in the common roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territory to which the Act extends in all courts including the Supreme Court.

5. Further, it was contended that Section 34(1) of the Act, empowers the High Court to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto and Rule 12 of the said Rules prescribes the dress to be worn by advocates appearing before the High Court and subordinate courts and there is no provision under the Act or the Rul