J&K High Court Rules That Women Advocates’ Face Coverings Violate BCI Dress Code

JAMMU, Dec 23: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has explicitly stated that women advocates are not permitted to appear in court with their faces covered, referencing specific rules set forth by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
This decision, which came during proceedings overseen by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi and Justice Rahul Bharti, highlighted that the BCI rules concerning the dress code for advocates do not allow for such attire. The court underscored the need to uphold decorum and ensure professional identification within courtroom settings.
The issue arose when a woman claiming to be an advocate entered the courtroom wearing a face covering. When asked to remove it for identification purposes, she contended that it was her fundamental right to appear in that manner. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to clarify the legal stance regarding the dress code for advocates.
Following the submission of this report, the court examined the relevant BCI guidelines, particularly Chapter IV (Part VI), which outlines the prescribed attire for advocates in court.
The court found that these regulations specify that women advocates may wear black full-sleeve jackets or blouses, white bands, sarees, or other conservative traditional clothing, accompanied by a black coat. However, there is no provision permitting face coverings as part of acceptable courtroom dress, the court noted.
“The rules do not indicate that any such attire (face cover) is acceptable for appearing in this court,” Justice Kazmi stated.
Highlighting the practical and legal issues that arise when advocates conceal their faces, Justice Bharti remarked in a separate order that clear identification of advocates is crucial for maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings. By refusing to comply with the request to uncover her face, the individual effectively rendered herself unidentifiable, leading the court to deny her appearance as an advocate.
In an interim order, Justice Bharti expressed,
“This court has no foundation to ascertain her actual identity, both personally and professionally.”
The court also cautioned the petitioners that their case might be dismissed for non-prosecution if proper representation was not secured. (LiveLaw)

Read Order Copy Click Here…..