Face covering by women advocates violates BCI dress code: J&K High Court

These observations resulting from the procedure before Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi and Justice Rahul Bhartipointed out that the Bar Council of India (BCI) rules governing the dress code of lawyers do not permit such attire and stressed the importance of maintaining decorum and professional identification in courtrooms.

The case was sparked when a woman identifying herself as a lawyer appeared in court wearing a face covering. When asked to remove it for identification, she insisted that it was her fundamental right to appear in such a state of dress. This led the court to order the Registrar General of the High Court to confirm the legal and regulatory position regarding the dress code for lawyers.

While submitting the report to this effect, the court examined the legal framework of the BCI Rules, particularly Chapter IV (Part VI), which prescribes the dress code of lawyers appearing before the courts.

The court noted that under these provisions, female defenders may wear long-sleeved black jackets or blouses, white bands, saris or other discreet traditional outfits, as well as a black coat. However, there is no mention or authorization for the inclusion of face coverings in the prescribed courtroom attire, the court pointed out.

“Nowhere in the rules is it stated that such attire (face covering) is permitted for appearance in this court. » remarked Judge Kazmi.

Highlighting the practical and legal challenges posed by lawyers appearing with their faces covered, Justice Bharti in another order pointed out that the court requires clear identification of lawyers to maintain the sanctity of court proceedings. By refusing to comply with the request to remove his face covering, the individual made himself unidentifiable, thereby forcing the court to refuse his appearance as a lawyer, the court said.

In his interim order Justice Bharti said:

“This court has no basis/opportunity to confirm his real identity, both as a person and a professional.”

The court further warned the applicants that their case could be dismissed as non-suitable if adequate representation was not provided.

Case titled: Mohammad Yasin Khan v Nazia Iqbal

Click here to read/download the order