
As bar associations go after courtroom imposters in black & white, concerns about ‘overreach'
In an effort to clamp down on the worrying trend of touts and fake lawyers misleading and defrauding litigants, the Rohini Court Bar Association (RCBA) issued a notice 15 July, prohibiting non-lawyers from wearing white shirts and black trousers within the court premises.
New Delhi: From Shahdara to Gurugram, court bar associations are imposing attire restrictions after a surge in non-lawyers posing as advocates — triggering fresh debate on freedom, formality, and access to justice.
'A number of touts are falsely representing themselves as official advocates or clerks… These individuals are misleading and defrauding uneducated litigants under false pretence,' the RCBA said.
A month earlier, the Gurgaon Bar Association passed a similar resolution, emphasising that only enrolled advocates or duly authorised law interns are permitted to wear the professional dress code — white shirt and black trousers, salwar suit, or sari—as per Bar Council of India (BCI) norms.
According to the resolution dated 5 June, violators now face a Rs 5,000 penalty, and the rule is strictly enforced inside the district court complex.
In November 2022, the Shahdara Bar Association of Delhi introduced a new dress code for interns—white shirt and blue coat and trousers. This was done keeping in mind the confusion and mix up between advocates and interns as a large number of interns visit the court.
But this order was set aside by the Delhi High Court which said a standard uniform should be mandated across the board as varying dress codes set by different bar associations would create confusion and difficulties for interns. Thus, the uniform prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi would be followed uniformly across Delhi.
In November 2018, a Delhi High Court judge set aside a similar notice issued by the Rohini Bar Association directing interns not to wear black coats.
Even though there have been debates about change in the formal attire due to the excessive summer heat—discussions about litigant's clothing have been uncommon.
Also Read: Gurugram Bar cracks down on courtroom impersonators with a 'black & white' ban
The colonial legacy
The black-and-white dress code—black coat, white shirt, neckband—was inherited by the Indian legal system from the British colonial tradition.
The tradition of wearing uniforms in courts is centuries-old. In England, judges began wearing wigs around 1650, although robes had already been in use even earlier. After Independence, India did away with the wig but retained black coats and robes as part of courtroom attire.
Under the Advocates Act of 1961, it is compulsory for lawyers in India to wear a black coat or robe along with a white neckband. Wearing a gown is optional, except when appearing before the Supreme Court or high courts.
Over the years, this uniform has become the visual shorthand for a lawyer in India — both inside courtrooms and in popular culture. But that symbolic power is now being undermined.
The crisp black coat and white shirt are more than just fashion. In India, they're a badge of authority. In Bollywood or TV, anyone in black-and-white is instantly assumed to be a powerful lawyer character—think Jolly LLB or Damini.
According to the Bar Council of India 'an advocate shall appear in court only in the dress prescribed and his appearance should always be presentable'.
The Advocates Act, 1961, along with the Bar Council of India Rules, outlines the dress code for advocates in India.
For male advocates , a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (knee-length jacket), black sherwani, and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, a black open-breast coat, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Long trouser —white, black, striped, or grey—or a dhoti.
For female advocates, a black full- or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, sarees or long skirts in white, black, or any mellow or subdued colour without any print or design or flares in white, black, black-striped, or grey.
But the rules, while clear for advocates, are silent on what litigants or the general public can or cannot wear.
Who owns the black & white?
Traditionally, litigants were expected to dress 'formally' in courts, out of respect for the proceedings. But now, some worry these colour restrictions could affect people simply trying to dress appropriately.
The recent curbs raise questions about dress codes being enforced beyond legal professionals.
'While the RCBA's intention to prevent impersonation is understandable, enforcing a prohibition on basic attire—white shirts and black trousers — across all court visitors strays into arbitrary overreach,' Delhi-based advocate Urja Pandey told ThePrint.
Furthermore, these are common everyday wear in India, worn by students, clerks, office workers, and even children, she explained. 'Banning them impinges on ordinary citizens' freedom of expression and right to access justice, especially when they may lack the means for elaborate wardrobe changes.'
'The Bar Council of India's authority under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act empowers it to regulate advocates' dress, not the public's; extending such rules to litigants or clerks risks legal invalidation,' she added.
Supreme Court advocate Shariq Ahmed Abbasi, however, said the Rohini Bar Association notice must be welcomed by the public at large.
This move, he said, is only to 'save litigants from the menace of touts. It was repeatedly brought to the knowledge of the Bar body that several miscreants had falsely represented themselves as lawyers and defrauded the litigants.'
'The step should be seen in the right earnest with the objective of preserving the interests of litigants and as a mark of professional identity and dignity of the legal fraternity,' he told ThePrint.
About alternatives, advocate Pandey explained how the issue of impersonation can be better addressed through 'targeted measures such as mandatory identity cards, better gate security, biometric checks, or visible signage — not blanket attire bans'.
Ved Prakash Sharma, co-chairman of the Bar Council of India since 2019 and a former chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, also criticised this move. He said a bar association is an association of advocates working at a particular court complex, and they have no right or authority to prescribe a dress code for members of the society.
'They (bar associations) have no legal or moral authority to do that, and (they) are exceeding their jurisdiction and authority by prescribing a dress code or penalising people wearing advocate attire,' he added. 'Even for advocates, the only statutory body—Bar Council of India—will prescribe a dress code.'
He acknowledged the concerns about touts, security and safety as legitimate, but said 'these things are to be taken up with the law enforcement authorities, the police concerned or the district judge or the High Court.' 'And it is their business how to control and regulate the entry of unwarranted people in the court complex.'
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Bangs, lipstick, low neckline—for Indian woman lawyers, merit evaluation steeped in misogyny
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
4 minutes ago
- Hans India
Yash Dayal Faces Rape Allegations: FIRs Filed in Jaipur and Ghaziabad
Indian cricketer Yash Dayal, who plays for Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) in the IPL, is facing serious legal trouble. A new FIR (police report) has been filed against him in Jaipur, where a young woman has accused him of rape and emotional blackmail over two years. She was 17 years old when the first incident reportedly happened. The case is being handled under the POCSO Act, which protects minors. According to reports, Yash Dayal promised her help in cricket and allegedly assaulted her in a hotel in Sitapura. This is the second case against Dayal. Earlier in Ghaziabad, another woman accused him of sexually exploiting her by falsely promising marriage. The Allahabad High Court has given a temporary stay on his arrest in that case. So far, RCB and BCCI have not commented on the matter.


Indian Express
4 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC seeks NIA's response on Engineer Rashid's plea seeking waiver of travel cost for attending Parliament
The Delhi High Court Friday sought the National Investigation Agency (NIA)'s response on the plea filed by Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, also known as Engineer Rashid, challenging the costs imposed by a trial court as part of his custody parole conditions to attend Parliament. Rashid, who is an Independent Lok Sabha MP, also sought interim bail. On Tuesday, a Delhi court granted custody parole to Rashid from July 24 to August 4 to attend the Monsoon Session of Parliament, but rejected his interim bail plea. Rashid urged the trial court to either grant interim bail or permission to attend Parliament in custody, without payment of travel costs, as he was seeking to attend the session as part of his public duty and not for personal work. Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh, however, imposed travel costs on him. Challenging the trial court's order, Senior Advocate N Hariharan told a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur Friday that despite the custody parole, Rashid was losing each day of the relief as he had not been able to attend the session due to the huge costs. Hariharan also submitted that Rashid has been 'saddled' with a cost of Rs 17 lakh to 'represent the public at large.' The bench posted the matter for further consideration on July 29, and issued notice to NIA. On the same day, the high court is also due to consider a plea by Rashid seeking regular bail after a trial court rejected the request on March 21. In March, while allowing Rashid to attend Parliament during the Budget session, the Delhi High Court imposed the condition that the lawmaker would bear the expense for his travel to Parliament while in the court's custody, accompanied by the police, and other arrangements. The jail authorities had estimated a daily cost of approximately Rs 1.45 lakh for travel and related arrangements, totalling Rs 8.74 lakh for Rashid to attend six days of Parliament. At the time, he had challenged the condition that required him to bear the costs before the HC. Subsequently, he had submitted that he is ready to deposit 50 per cent of the cost of over Rs 8.74 lakh for the police escort arrangement to attend Parliament. Recording Rashid's submission, the Delhi HC had directed that he would be allowed to attend Parliament after depositing the amount. Lodged in Delhi's Tihar Jail since 2019 in a case of alleged terror funding, he was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to NIA, he used various public platforms to 'propagate the ideology of separatism and secessionism', was closely associated with various terrorist organisations, and wanted to 'legitimise' the United Jihad Council, a platform of anti-India militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. On May 30, 2017, NIA registered a case under Indian Penal Code Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Saeed and other 'secessionist and separatist' leaders, including Rashid. NIA claimed they 'received and collected' funds through hawala channels in 'connivance with active militants of…terrorist organizations Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Dukhtaran-e-Millat, Lashkar-e-Toiba' to fund 'terrorist activities' in Jammu and Kashmir.


Indian Express
4 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Govt bans over 20 OTT platforms including Ullu, ALTT, Desiflix for ‘obscene content'
In a bid to crack down on unlawful and obscene content, the government has directed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disable public access to over 20 OTT platforms, including big and popular names like Ullu, ALTT, and Desiflix. A notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) emphasised that the intermediaries are responsible for removing or disabling access to unlawful information under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It said the move is aimed at curbing the dissemination of content that is deemed sexually explicit and violative of Indian legal and cultural standards. The banned apps include Big Shots App, Boomex, Navarasa Lite, Gulab App, Kangan App, Bull App, Jalva App, Wow Entertainment, Look Entertainment, Hitprime, Feneo, ShowX, Sol Talkies, Adda TV, HotX VIP, Hulchul App, MoodX, NeonX VIP, Fugi, Mojflix, Triflicks. These have been found in violation of various laws, including Section 67 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The government has explicitly directed Internet Service Providers to disable or remove public access to these websites within India. 'MIB has also intimated to the Director (DS-II), Department of Telecommunications, with a request to facilitate compliance by the ISPs,' as per media reports, and the action shows the government's commitment to enforcing digital content regulations and ensuring adherence to the laws in the country. In April, the Supreme Court responded to a petition calling for a ban on sexually explicit content on OTT and social media. 'It's not our domain, you do something,' the SC said. However, the Justices also highlighted the need for executive action, with the Solicitor General indicating existing regulations and further measures under consideration.