'Making Lawyers Wear Black Coats In Summer Unsafe' : Plea In Supreme Court To Relax Advocates' Dress Code During Summer

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to amend the rules and the Advocate Act 1961 to exempt the lawyers from wearing the traditional black coats and gowns in the scorching heat of the summer months.

The petition further seeks to direct the State Bar Councils to determine 'months of prevailing summer' for each state in order to exempt the wearing of the black coat and gown for those months. It is additionally prayed for the setting up of a committee of medical experts to study how wearing warm clothes in summer affects the health, work capacity, and quality of work for advocates and suggest recommendations accordingly. 

The plea filed by Advocate Mr Shailendra Mani Tripathi urges the Top Court to consider relaxing the traditional dress code for advocates across the states considering that the same may cause hardships and health issues in the extremity of the growing summer heat. The petition stresses the British-origin dress code of black coats and gowns failed to take into consideration the Country's varied climatic considerations.

The continuous absorption of heat by the black colour of the uniform causes much irritability, duress and is counterproductive for the active work profile of advocates. This, the petition states is violative of the right to safe working conditions for advocates across the country. 

"Everyone has the right to work in safe conditions. Making lawyers wear heavy black coats in summer makes their working conditions unsafe and uncomfortable. This isn't just inconvenient; it violates their right to a safe workplace." 

It was also pointed out that those advocates already suffering from other health conditions may not be similarly placed with healthier advocates as the black dress code may impact them severely. 

"..there's the issue of fairness and equality. Not all lawyers are affected equally. Those with health problems or less ability to tolerate heat suffer more. This unequal impact violates their right to equal treatment. For example, younger lawyers trying to establish their careers might not complain for fear of retribution, even though they suffer immensely. This creates an unfair working environment and discourages open discussion about health and safety." 

Additionally, it is argued that lawyers should also have the freedom to dress comfortably which is a part of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.  

"Moreover, this requirement impacts the freedom of expression. Lawyers should have the freedom to dress comfortably, especially when their attire affects their health and work performance. Forcing them to wear black coats in summer limits this freedom. The Supreme Court, in cases like S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), has stressed that personal freedom includes the ability to express oneself through attire and other personal choices."  

" The rule forcing lawyers to wear black coats in summer is harmful to their health, creates unsafe working conditions, treats some lawyers unfairly, limits their freedom of expression, and violates their right to live with dignity. The procedure depriving a person of his life or personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, as established in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978). The Government of India and the Bar Council of India have failed to address this issue. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court should be given directions to take appropriate steps to ensure that lawyers can dress more suitably in the summer, safeguarding their health, safety, and dignity" 

It may be noted that as per the rules framed under S. 49(1) (gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961 the traditional dress code of black robes is made mandatory for all  advocates : 

Form of Dress or Robes To Be Worn By Advocates [Rule Under Section 49(1)(GG) of The Act] Advocates, appearing in the Supreme Court, High Court, subordinate courts, tribunals or authorities shall wear the following as part of their dress which shall be sober and dignified; Advocates other than lady advocates:

1. (a) a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan, black sherwani and white bands with advocate's gown, or (b) a black open breast coat, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with advocates' gowns. In either case long trousers (white, black, striped or grey) or dhoti.

Lady advocates:

2. (a) black and full or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with advocates' gowns;

(b) sarees or long skirts (white or black or any mellow or subdued colour without any print or design) or flares (white, black or black-striped or gray):

Provided that the wearing of advocate's gown shall be optional except when appearing in the Supreme Court or in a High Court. Provided further that in court other than the Supreme Court, High Court, District Court, Sessions Court or City Civil Court, a black tie may be worn instead of bands.

The reliefs sought by the petitioner are as follows : 

I. Give direction to the Bar Council of India to amend its rules and the Advocates Act 1961, to exempt advocates from wearing Black coats and Gowns in the months of summer, in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

II. Give direction to the Bar Council of each state to amend their rules and determine the months of 'prevailing summer' for that particular state during which Black coats and Gowns can be exempted according to the temperature and humidity variation of different States.

III. Direct the Union of India to set up a committee of medical experts to study how wearing warm clothes in summer affects the health, work capacity, and quality of work for advocates, railway TTEs, and other employees who have to follow these dress codes. The committee should look into these issues and provide a detailed report with recommendations.

IV.Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case 

The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court in 2022 seeking the same relief, which was withdrawn to file a representation before the Bar Council of India.

Case Details:  Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. BCI Diary No. 24405/2024