Does a strict outfit rule solve security issues at Delhi courts?

The issue of lack of security in Delhi courts has been a longstanding one. One of the recent incidents was the gunning down of a gangster at the Rohini court in 2021

A recent directive barring everyone but lawyers from wearing black pants and white shirt at the Rohini court premises has evoked a mixed response from senior bar leaders and former judges themselves — while they acknowledge that the diktat will prevent impersonation and fraud, the question which arises is: how do you control an individualistic a choice as clothes.

At the Rohini court following a shootout in September 2021. The assailants were dressed as lawyers. (HT Archive)

“The intention is to distinguish lawyers from others and to bolster court security,” said Pradeep Khatri, secretary of the Rohini Bar Association. “We cannot penalise anyone for not obeying the dress code, but lawyers have been requested to sensitise their clients about the rule and the reason behind it. There will be some initial hurdles, but over time, the notice will be followed.”

To be sure, the July 15 directive by the Rohini court bar association does not come with a penalty.

But the notice is not enforceable or legally untenable, and falls outside the Rohini bar’s jurisdiction, according to a former Delhi High Court judge and the Bar Council of India (BCI), the apex regulatory body for lawyers in the country.

“Even the BCI cannot govern dress codes for litigants or court visitors… a bar association cannot give out such a diktat…It is an outrageous move and jurisdictional powers should be maintained by bar associations,” said BCI co-chairman Advocate Ved Sharma.

Retired Delhi high court judge justice RS Sodhi said “a court visitor or litigant can at most be asked to dress appropriately before the court as a sign of respect for the bench,” he said, adding that lawyers ought to be focused on discussing cases with clients instead of briefing them on clothing choices.

Besides, a lawyer’s true distinguishable physical identity is their gown and the white neck band, says advocate Nagendra Kumar, president of the Patiala House Court Bar Association.

“The black and white attire is not limited to a lawyer. Litigants or general visitors can often include high-profile individuals who can be seen in all sorts of attire of their choice,” he said. At Shahdara court, the sentiment was mirrored by its bar association secretary Narveer Dabas

On the other hand, secretary of the Saket Court Bar Association, advocate Anil Basoya, agreed that “clerks can be directed not to wear such attire”, adding that “we will be passing a similar notice to that end.” But for litigants and general visitors, a blanket order needs careful consideration, he said.

“No clerk, litigant, or member of the general public is permitted to wear a white shirt and black pants during their visit to the court complex,” the notice stated.

Long-standing security issues

The issue of lack of security in the Capital’s courts has been a longstanding one. One of the recent and violent incidents was the gunning down of a gangster in broad daylight at the Rohini court in September 2021. The assailants were dressed as lawyers. In April 2023, a debarred lawyer went on a shooting spree outside the lawyer’s block of the Saket court complex, injuring a woman with whom he had a previous rivalry.

The incidents laid bare the lax security protocols, especially at as sensitive locations as courts.

However, bar leaders question the apparent solution pursued by the Rohini bar association, warning that it could adversely impact litigants.

Advocate Ved Sharma said, “It shouldn’t be the case that a person heading to court for a matter takes time out and first checks whether he has not accidentally put on white and black trousers…another question is that what is the standard protocol in such situations. Will the judge point it out or the lawyers or will there be a separate person employed to carry out the checks?”

While BCI officials acknowledged the intent behind the directive, they emphasised the need to look at systemic solutions, such as upgradation of security infrastructure. “There should be discussions with security agencies to upgrade infrastructure and manpower to prevent such incidents… an order like this is not the solution,” he added.

Meanwhile, a discussion on the directive is now being planned — advocate Tarun Rana, secretary of the Patiala House Bar Association, said the technicalities of the notice and its implementation are being studied and a joint meeting of bar associations will be convened soon. “The notice is not clear as to who will check the attire and what action will be taken against those who do not follow it… more discussions need to be made on this issue,” he said.