Jammu & Kashmir High Court: No Face Coverings for Women Advocates in Court
In a significant observation, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the dress code prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not allow women advocates to wear face coverings in court. The issue came to light when Advocate Syed Arainain Qadri appeared with her face covered during a hearing and refused to remove it despite the court’s request.
The Incident
On November 27, Advocate Qadri appeared before Justice Rahul Bharti in a domestic violence case. While she was dressed in traditional advocate attire, her face covering raised concerns about verifying her identity as both a person and a professional. When asked to remove the covering, Qadri cited her fundamental right to wear it.
Justice Bharti, emphasizing the importance of identity verification in legal proceedings, did not allow her to represent the petitioners that day. Seeking clarity on the matter, the court referred to the Bar Council of India’s rules on advocate attire.
Court’s Ruling
On December 13, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi clarified that the BCI rules, outlined under Section 49(1)(gg) of Chapter IV (Part VI), do not permit face coverings for advocates appearing in court. The rules specify the acceptable dress code, which ensures a formal and professional standard but excludes face coverings.
Justice Kazmi emphasized the importance of maintaining courtroom integrity and ensuring that every advocate’s professional identity is visible and verifiable.
Case Outcome
With Qadri stepping back, another lawyer represented the petitioners. After reviewing the arguments, Justice Kazmi dismissed the petition on December 13, citing the availability of an alternative remedy.
Key Takeaway
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to professional dress codes in legal settings. By requiring advocates to adhere strictly to the prescribed attire, the court aims to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings while ensuring transparency and professionalism.
The decision serves as a reminder that individual rights must be balanced with the formal requirements of the legal profession, ensuring fairness and accountability in the justice system.
