Bar Council rules do not permit women lawyers to appear in court with face covered: J&K HC
The observation came after a person claiming to be a lawyer appeared before it with her face covered and refused to remove it when requested.
The Bar Council of India’s dress code for women advocates does not permit them to appear in court with their faces covered, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has observed.
The observation came on December 13 after a person, claiming to be a lawyer, had appeared before the court with her face covered.
On November 27, the person, identified as advocate Syed Ainain Qadri, appeared in the court representing petitioners in a plea to quash a domestic violence case.
While wearing the official attire prescribed for advocates, her face was covered. This prompted Justice Rahul Bharti, the judge hearing the case at the time, to request her to remove it so that her identity could be confirmed.
Qadri argued that covering her face was her fundamental right and that the court cannot insist that she remove it.
The court, unable to confirm her identity, decided not to allow her to appear for the petitioners that day.
The court adjourned the matter and directed the registrar general of the High Court to confirm if rules allowed women advocates to appear with their face covered or if they could refuse a request from the court to remove it.
The registrar general submitted a report on December 5.
Upon reviewing the report, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi on December 13 said that the Bar Council of India’s rules on dress code for women advocates do not allow face coverings. “It is nowhere stated in the rules that any such attire is permissible for appearing before this court,” the judge said.
The court did not explore the matter further as the woman advocate chose not to appear in the case again. In the meantime, another lawyer had stepped in to represent the petitioners in the matter now 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.