IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 9960 OF 2019 PETITIONER:

J.M.DEEPAK AGED 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O.LATE JAYACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT E 18, NAYANA, JUDGE LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING OFFICE AT THE CHAMBER 2ND FLOOR, HARSHA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE JUDICIAL OFFICERS, QUARTERS, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.

SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENTS:

1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, KERALA 682 031.

2 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 21, ROUSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BAL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 002.

3 BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, KERALA 682 031.

BY ADVS.

SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

SRI.RAJIT, SC, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA SRI.SIVARAMAN P.L SRI.K.R. GANESH, R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

W.P.(C) No.9960 of 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2025

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, has filed the captioned writ petition, seeking to set aside Ext.P1 order of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and also seeking further directions to the 1^st respondent to make changes to Rule 12 of the Kerala High Court Rules.

2. Heard Sri.R.Sunilkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.R.Ganesh, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent herein, Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.Sivaraman P.L., the learned counsel for the

3^rd respondent.

4. The petitioner assailed Ext.P1 order insofar as when the petitioner appeared in connection with a matter posted before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on 23.03.2019 only wearing a white shirt and a black tie, the learned Judge refused audience to the petitioner, citing that the petitioner was not wearing the dress prescribed under the rules framed by the Kerala High Court under the provisions of the Advocates Act.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri.Sunilkumar brought to the notice of this Court, a notice dated 09.04.2024, issued by the Registrar General, with reference to a request filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association in connection with the dress code during the summer season. On the basis of the decision taken by the Full Court, the afore notice has permitted the advocates appearing in the Courts in the District Judiciary to wear a white shirt with band and the use of black coat and the Advocate’s Gown is made optional. However, as regards lawyers who are appearing before this Court, the wearing of Gown alone is made optional. This Court notices that the changes as above were having validity only till 31.05.2024.

6. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that though the findings contained in Ext.P1 cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary, insofar as this Court has already taken note of the requirement for changes in the dress code during the summer season, the petitioner is to make an appropriate representation before the 1^st respondent herein, pointing out the afore relying on the notice dated 09.04.2024, in which event, the 1^st respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the side of the petitioner.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE anm APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9960/2019 P ETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 876/19 IN O P G&W 465/2014.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OBTAINED FROM THE W EB SITE OF KALA BAR COUNCIL EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

HCKL/3594/2024-A7, DATED 09/04/2024