Gauhati High Court slams lawyer for justifying wearing jeans in court; says he may ask for torn jeans, pajamas next

The Gauhati High Court recently refused to make any modifications to an order passed last year to remove a lawyer from the court premises after he turned up in court wearing jeans [Bijon Kumar Mahajan vs The State Of Assam]..Justice Kalyan Rai Surana pulled up the lawyer Bijan Kumar Mahajan for attempting to justify his conduct after he sought modification of the earlier order on the ground that jeans are not explicitly excluded under the Gauhati High Court Rules even though they are excluded under the Bar Council of India (BCI) rules. The Court said the Mahajan through the application for modification of the order passed on January 27,2023, was making an attempt to open Pandora’s Box which may create more problems than one can expect.“If jeans can be worn in Court, then the applicant may next ask why he shall not be permitted to appear in Court in “torn” jeans, “faded” jeans, jeans with “printed patches”, which are considered to be fashionable, or why he should not be allowed to appear in black track pant, or black pajamas merely because the Gauhati High Court Rules has not specifically excluded those,” the Court said..The Court refused to delve into whether Gauhati High Court (Conditions of Practice of Advocates) Rules, 2010 would prevail over the BCI rules on the dress code of advocates. However, it left the question open to be decided in a more appropriate proceeding.“This Court refrains from conclusively deciding this issue without notice to the proper and necessary parties, like Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, etc., as well to this Court.”It is within the domain of every presiding judicial officer and High Court judge to uphold adherence to the advocate’s dress code within the Court campus, Justice Surana observed..During the hearing of a pre-arrest bail matter in January 2023, Mahajan had appeared before the Court in jeans. Justice Surana then ordered the police “to decourt him outside the High Court campus”.Mahajan then moved an application seeking modification of that order saying that he could not have been removed from the court as Rule 16 of the Gauhati High Court (Conditions of Practice of Advocates) Rules, 2010 does not exclude jeans.He also submitted that the Court should not have called the police personnel to remove him as he was not a security threat..The Court at the outset considered the submission that the lawyer should have been given a notice to explain his conduct. It reasoned that since the lawyer was not properly attired, it was inclined to disagree with the submission that he was entitled to a notice before he was removed from the Court.On the argument that the lawyer could not have been thrown out of the High Court premises, the Court said that no order had been passed to restrain him to appear even on the same day if he came in the proper prescribed dress. “Thus, the right of the applicant to practice in Court was not infringed by the order dated 27.01.2023. But such a right must be exercised in accordance with the Bar Council of India Rules read with the Gauhati High Court Rules. Hence, the said case also does not help the applicant in any way,” it said..The Court further observed that since it was exercising the criminal jurisdiction while taking up the pre-arrest bail, the prayer for recall or expunging the order cannot be allowed as review is not permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure.“Under the circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that as this proceeding arise in jurisdiction under Criminal Procedure Code, review of earlier order is legally not permissible,” it added.The Court also remarked that it had an inherent right to refuse audience to the lawyer after he had entered the courtroom wearing jeans and that the order once implemented, cannot be undone now.“The Court had decourted the applicant by passing a judicial order, which was implemented. The order of the Court, which has been implemented, cannot be undone by subsequent order of the same Court.”.Thus, the Court found that no case was made out for modification or alteration of the order passed on January 27 last year and accordingly dismissed the application.Senior Advocates PK Goswami, KN Choudhury and advocates A Choudhury, AK Baruah and D Borah represented the applicant Bijon Kumar Mahajan. Additional Public Prosecutor K Baishya represented the State.[Read Order]