close
close

Bar Council rules do not allow women lawyers to appear in court with their faces covered: J&K High Court

Bar Council rules do not allow women lawyers to appear in court with their faces covered: J&K High Court

Bar Council of India Dress Code for Women Advocates does not allow that they appear before the court with their faces covered, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed.

The sighting took place on December 13 after a person, claiming to be a lawyer, appeared in court with their face covered.

On November 27, the person, identified as lawyer Syed Ainain Qadri, appeared before the court to represent the petitioners in a plea for quashing of a domestic violence case.

While she wore the official attire prescribed for lawyers, her face was covered. This prompted Justice Rahul Bharti, the judge presiding over the case at the time, to ask him to delete it so that his identity can be confirmed.

Qadri argued that covering her face was her fundamental right and that the court could not insist that she remove it.

The court, unable to confirm his identity, decided not to allow him to appear that day for the applicants.

The court adjourned the case and ordered the Registrar General of the High Court to confirm whether the rules allowed female lawyers to appear with their faces covered or whether they could refuse a court request to remove the mask.

The Registrar General submitted a report on December 5.

After reviewing the report, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi on December 13 said that the Bar Council of India’s rules on dress code for women’s rights activists do not allow the wearing of masks. “Nowhere in the rules is it stated that such attire is permitted for appearance in this court,” the judge said.

The court did not consider the matter further as the representative chose not to reappear in the case. Meanwhile, another lawyer had stepped in to represent the petitioners in the case currently being heard by Kazmi.

On December 13, the court dismissed the plea it was hearing after determining that an alternative legal remedy was available to the petitioners in the case.