A petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court urging amendments to the Advocate Act 1961 and related regulations, with the aim of exempting lawyers from the requirement to wear traditional black coats and gowns during the hot summer months.

The petition also requests the Supreme Court to instruct the State Bar Councils to identify the "months of prevailing summer" specific to each state, enabling exemptions from the mandatory wearing of black coats and gowns during those periods. Furthermore, it seeks the establishment of a committee comprising medical professionals to investigate the impact of wearing warm clothing during summer on the health, productivity, and quality of work for advocates, with the goal of providing appropriate recommendations.

Advocate Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, in his plea, urges the Supreme Court to contemplate easing the traditional attire requirements for advocates nationwide, citing potential hardships and health concerns arising from the escalating summer temperatures. The petition underscores that the British-origin dress code of black coats and gowns overlooks the diverse climatic conditions prevalent in India.

The petition highlights that the continuous absorption of heat due to the black color of the uniform leads to significant discomfort, stress, and is detrimental to the active work engagement of advocates. Such conditions, the petition argues, infringe upon the right to safe working conditions for advocates nationwide.

"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."

Additionally, it was emphasized that advocates who are already grappling with pre-existing health conditions may face more severe repercussions from the black dress code, exacerbating their health challenges further. This discrepancy underscores the need for a reconsideration of the dress code to ensure equitable treatment for all advocates, regardless of their health status.

"..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."

Moreover, the argument posits that lawyers should have the liberty to dress comfortably, which is inherent to their Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. This freedom extends to their attire, allowing them to choose clothing that enables them to work effectively and without discomfort.

"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).''

It's worth noting that according to the rules established under Section 49(1) (gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the traditional dress code of black robes is mandated for all advocates.

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