The Gauhati High Court recently upheld its decision made last year to remove a lawyer from the court premises for appearing in court wearing jeans, declining any requests for alterations to the initial order.

Justice Kalyan Rai Surana reprimanded lawyer Bijan Kumar Mahajan for trying to defend his actions when he requested a revision of the previous ruling, arguing that jeans are not expressly prohibited under the Gauhati High Court Rules, despite being prohibited under the Bar Council of India (BCI) rules.

The Court noted that Mahajan's request for modification of the order issued on January 27, 2023, was akin to opening Pandora's Box, potentially leading to unforeseen complications and issues.

The Court declined to examine whether the Gauhati High Court (Conditions of Practice of Advocates) Rules, 2010 would take precedence over the Bar Council of India (BCI) rules regarding the dress code of advocates. However, it left this question unresolved, suggesting that it should be addressed in a more suitable 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.”

Justice Surana remarked that it is the responsibility of every presiding judicial officer and High Court judge to enforce compliance with the advocate's dress code within the court premises. In a pre-arrest bail hearing in January 2023, Mahajan attended the court wearing jeans. Consequently, Justice Surana instructed the police to remove him from the High Court campus.

Mahajan subsequently filed an application seeking a modification of the order, contending that he should not have been expelled from the court premises as Rule 16 of the Gauhati High Court (Conditions of Practice of Advocates) Rules, 2010 does not explicitly prohibit jeans. He further argued that calling the police to remove him was unnecessary as he posed no security threat.

The Court initially considered the argument that Mahajan should have been given notice to explain his behavior. However, it reasoned that since he was not appropriately dressed according to court standards, it disagreed with the notion that he was entitled to a notice before being removed from the court.

Regarding the assertion that Mahajan should not have been ejected from the High Court premises, the Court clarified that no order had been issued to prevent him from appearing on the same day if he adhered to the prescribed dress code.

The Court also noted that since it was exercising criminal jurisdiction during the consideration of the pre-arrest bail matter, the request for recalling or expunging the order could not be granted, as the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit reviews in such cases.

The Court also emphasized its inherent authority to deny the lawyer an audience after he had entered the courtroom wearing jeans. Additionally, it stated that once the order had been executed, it could not be reversed or undone at this juncture.

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.