GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed the interlocutory application of a lawyer seeking modifications to an order by which it had evicted him from the court premises after he had showed up wearing jeans.
Justice Kalyan Rai Surana was critical of the lawyer Bijan Kumar Mahajan for attempting to justify his conduct on the ground that jeans are not excluded under the Gauhati High Court Rules although they are excluded under the Bar Council of India Rules.
The court said Mahajan was making an attempt to open the Pandora’s Box through the interlocutory application.
“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 have not specifically excluded those,” the court said in its order issued recently.
Mahajan, who is a senior lawyer, submitted that the court could not have de-courted him as he had expressed his regret and assured the court not to repeat the same. He said as he was not discourteous or unruly, the court ought not to have called the police to de-court him, for he was not a security threat.
Further, he submitted that the Gauhati High Court Rules did not empower the court to de-court him.
“…the court is inclined to disagree with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that he was entitled to a notice before he was refused an audience by the court and/or de-courted for not being in uniform…In other words, it was being urged that the applicant could not have been de-courted outside the court campus. Be in this case, the court had exercised its powers within the court campus,” the order said.
The court said the lawyer was de-courted for that moment and no order was passed to restrain him to appear even on the same day if he came in the proper prescribed dress and thus, the right of the applicant to practice in court was not infringed by the January 27, 2023 order.
The court said review of that order was legally not permissible.
“As the applicant was not properly attired, his legal or fundamental right to get an audience from the court cannot be said to have been infringed on being de-courted for wearing jeans. Hence, this interlocutory application stands dismissed,” the court order further said.