Why lawyers wear black coat in courts?

Zafar Iqbal Kalanaurii

Introduction
In most countries of the world lawyers wear black, or at the very least garments with
some black trim or lining. This tradition is said to have begun in 17th Century
England. In 1694 all of the nation's judges attended the funeral of Queen Mary
dressed in black robes as a sign of mourning. It was believed that gowns and wigs
gave a degree of anonymity to judges and lawyers. The official period of morning
lasted many years, and overlapped with much of Britain's colonial adventures in
other countries. The black robe tradition spread around the world and thus still
persists today. Red is the second-most popular color for judicial robes, which likely
reflects the fact that red has historically been a color associated with royalty, and
judges were originally appointed as servants of the monarch.
The dress code is not merely a status symbol, but brings out discipline among
lawyers and gives them the confidence to fight for justice. The dress code also
differentiates the lawyers from other professionals.
Lawyers wear black coat so that they have to defend the case of each of the side
and black is the colour of defence. To say that law is blind. To say that law is only
based on weight of evidence and not on colours of people.
After independence, in Pakistan, the courts have continued to uphold the pre-
independence (British-Raj traditions) of lawyers wearing white shirt and black coat,
trouser and tie. However, in the 1980s, judges modified their dress to do away with
wig and allowed (optional) the usage of a Black Sherwani, a long traditional Pakistani
coat worn over white Shalwar and Qamiz (trouser and shirt).
In Pakistan, the dress code for lawyers or legal practitioners varies with the season.
During the winter months, a formal black suit and tie are worn. During the hot
summer months, white shirt and trousers and a black tie may be worn. In addition,
judges wear a black robe over their other garments. Wigs are no longer worn. Dress
codes are rigorously enforced within the Superior Courts of the country.

Back Ground
The popular character of Barney Stinson in the TV show “How I met your mother”
religiously wears only suits due to his personal belief (which is actually a widely
prevalent belief in the modern world) that suits are symbolic of professionalism,
power and class. That is why in countries such as the US, the term ‘suits’ is a
commonly used metonym for lawyers or officers of the law.
From a perspective of a common citizen, a visit to the local court can indeed be a
petrifying experience, even after several changes have been introduced. And the
irony is that the court was established with the aim to facilitate and aid the layperson
in seeking justice! The hustling-bustling stretches of the corridors of power emanate
an air of supremacy, establishing a rich contrast between the anxious visitors and
the haughty lawyers adorned in black coats- the robe imparting to them an
unbeatable confidence. Hence, the omniscient lawyers establish their authority over
powerless citizens on account of their knowledge of complicated laws, devious
processes and a complex system which is incomprehensible to the so- called non
cogent minds of ordinary citizens! However, in the sweltering heat in Lahore recently,
when monsoon has also failed to enchant with its aquatic bliss and has cut across to
neighboring area surrounding Lahore while leaving it parched and dry, the visit to the
temple of justice becomes more enigmatic as being surrounded by the professionals
in the Black blazers makes one feel the heat to be more scorching. Firstly, the color
black, scientists claim, absorbs more heat, and secondly, the blazer with full sleeves
in the humid weather doesn’t let the sweat dry exacerbating the effects of the
clammy climate. This article therefore is about my quest as a lawyer and a
researcher to demystify the black coat anomaly as to why one would wear such
dress when climate wise it is unsuitable. Is it an illusion of power or a symbol of
oppression? Nevertheless, when I reflect years back on my personal experience as
an advocate entering the court as a novice, wearing the black coat gave me a feeling
of liberation, autonomy and a sense of independence, but when I sweat profusely in
killing summers of Lahore, I realized that it is a tool for oppression and torture.

Voyage of an Enquiring Mind

Wearing black coat during the summer season aggravates summer ailments like
dehydration, skin ailments, rashes, nose bleeds, sunstrokes, migraines and other
medical ailments as advised by medical experts because firstly, black colour absorb
more heat as compared to any other color and secondly, the full sleeve coat even if
made of thinner material will not allow the skin to cool off. Yet, this practice of
wearing black coat during summers continues by the lawyers almost all over
Pakistan.
I enquired from a lawyer, an acquaintance of mine, “Don’t you feeling uncomfortable
in this black coat in this muggy monsoon when the temperature is above 40 degrees
Celsius and humidity is killing you?” “What about my professional integrity? It is an
integral part of my identity as a lawyer”, pat came the reply. “Yes, it may be a
universal symbol of the profession, and impart a sense of achievement to a wearer,
but at the same time, it is also a remnant of the colonial rule” I retorted. “It’s a long-
standing tradition which eventually becomes a habit once you start wearing it and
now lawyers are recognized by this black coat”, he argued. “The dress code is not
merely a status symbol, but brings out discipline among lawyers and gives them the
confidence to fight for justice. The dress code also differentiates the lawyers from
other professionals”, he explained further. “Sure, it is true to all professions, the
doctors do wear white or surgeons wear green or blue coat, the judges do wear
black robes, and even academicians do associate with the robes and caps when
they are awarded with the degrees, however, the superior courts do have a
temperature regulation system inside the building and most of the hospitals in
Lahore do take care to install equipment to keep hospitals cool, however, this is not
the case here. Many of the lawyers are working outside, sitting or running around in
sizzling heat wearing those black coats. Are they doing it for the purpose to maintain
tradition, to uphold the identity of the profession or carrying out seriousness
associated with it?” I asked. “But you have to maintain the professional decorum in
any case and another feature of it is to be on time before the judge” he replied and
walked away. Dissatisfied with his line of argument, I decided to probe further on this
issue as being an advocate myself I cannot believe in this half baked reply about
maintaining professional integrity and decorum.

Exploring Legal Provisions

While a little search in the Library among the stacks of Halsbury, Austin, Maine and
loads of other English law books besides Law Journals, I found that the The dress
code for the bar and the bench in Pakistan is prescribed in the High Court Rules and
Orders, General Chapter, under the head Dress of Advocates appearing in High
Courts; and Supreme Court Rules 1980 in Part 1 under Order IV Rule 8 and
Supreme Court (Court Dress and Mode of Dress) Order 1980, prescribe the same
dress for all the advocates irrespective of the designation. It says:
Advocates, appearing in the Supreme Court, High Court, subordinate courts,
tribunals or authorities shall wear the following as part of their dress which shall be
sober and dignified;
Advocates other than lady advocates:
1. (a) a black buttoned-up coat, black sherwani and white bands or a black tie with
advocate’s gown, or
(b) a black open breast coat, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands or a black tie
with advocates’ gowns.
In either case long trousers (white, black, striped or grey).
Lady advocates:
2. black and full or half-sleeve jacket, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with
advocates’ gowns;
In either case long shalwar or trousers (white, black, striped or grey).
Provided that the wearing of advocate’s gown shall be optional except when
appearing in the Supreme Court or in a High Court.
Provided further that in court other than the Supreme Court, High Court, District
Court, Sessions Court or City Civil Court, a black tie may be worn instead of bands.” 1

A Historical Background
Further probing reveals that the history of the black coat dates back to 1327 when
Edward III formulated the costumes for judges based on the dress code for attending
the Royal court. At the end of the 13th century the structure of the legal profession in
Britain was strictly divided between judges; sergeants who wore a white coiffure wig
on their heads and practiced from St Paul’s Cathedral; and the four Inns of Court,
divided into students, pleaders, benchers (the ruling body of the Inn) and barristers,
who were mostly hail from royal and wealthy families. The attire of these men kept
up with the fashion of those times. Vibrant reds and maroons gowns were
fashionable in the 15th century, spruced with golden fabric and warmed with fur.
Appearance wise there was a little difference between lawyers and the rest of
wealthy society. This changed during the 1600s when the glorious displays were
repealed. In 1637, the Privy Council ruled that lawyers need to dress according to
their “place” in society. Lawyers therefore were decked in full length gowns or “noble
robe” modeled on ecclesiastical sensibilities worn both in court and in general public.
It was made from a rough fabric blend of silk, mohair and wool stiffened with gum.
Predictably, personal modifications soon followed by those who liked to display their
“superior” status. Their robes were fanciful adorned with silk tufts. Those in the
higher ranks sported hanging sleeves as an additional adornment2.
The robes adopted in 1685 were the symbolic of mourning for King Charles II. While
there are theories that the passing of Queen Mary II (1694) or Queen Anne (1714)

1 High Court Rules and Orders, General Chapter, under the head Dress of Advocates appearing in
High Courts; and Supreme Court Rules 1980 in Part 1 under Order IV Rule 8 and Supreme Court
(Court Dress and Mode of Dress) Order 1980
2 Haque Emdadul (2012) The Tradition of Lawyer’s Dress Code, July 1, The Daily Star issue 277

http://archive.thedailystar.net/law/2012/07/01/depth.htm
was the trigger, historian J.H. Baker attributes it to the death of King Charles II
(1685). These “mourning robe” were designed to have pleated shoulders and bell-
shaped sleeves. Again, the higher ranking lawyers’ robes set them apart with flap
collars and different sleeves. Similar such robes are worn today. The wigs also follow
the fashion of that era. It was believed that gowns and wigs gave a degree of
anonymity to judges and lawyers. Different styles of wig were used depending on the
hierarchy3. Bands, the official neckwear, also originated in UK, where these were
used for legal, official, clerical, priestly and academic use3.
But that is the custom started by British. They did so, because it was the fashion of
that particular era or they probably used it because of the local climatic conditions.
As the rulers, they imposed the same culture and customs on the `colonies’ they
acquired without taking into consideration the local climatic requirements or general
socio-economic conditions. However, many of these `colonies’ continued with the
legacy and adopted the same system, the same culture, the same laws and even the
same dress without any changes even after they freed themselves from the imperial
rule. For example, in Pakistan as well as in its neighboring countries like India, Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh situation remains same after decades of independence.
Though certain amendments were made in laws and the Constitutions, however, the
issue of dress code has been overlooked.
The origins of the modern-day suit can be traced to the 19th century Regency
Britain, an era, characterized by inter alia distinctive trends in British fashion. One of
the trends in fashion was the simplification of the elaborately embroidered and
jeweled formal clothing of the nobility into a much more comfortable formal wear.
This led to the conception of the modern day suit, which eventually became a strictly
followed formality in the subsequent Victorian era. A lot of factors can be taken into
account for this change in fashion such as the decreasing power of the nobility and
the need for a new up and coming industrial elite to be accommodated in the
corridors of power.
Coming back to Pakistan, we find ourselves dutifully following the British tradition left
behind. Pakistan is a country, which has a blazingly hot and prolonged summer and
a brief and mild winter. Lawyers are forced to face the onslaught of soaring
temperatures and suffocating humidity during the summer season at the courts, the
conditions of which are exacerbated by the poor infrastructure and the constant load-
shedding. On top of this, lawyers are forced to wear a black suit (black being the
best absorber of heat). Needless to say, a person of average strength or
perseverance does not last long in these courts.4

3 Haque Emdadul (2012) History of Costumes for Lawyers: Magnificence vs Ridicule

http://www.banglanews24.com/Law/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=093f65e080a295f8076b1c5722a4
6aa2&nttl=2012071259
4 http://www.legal-advice-library.info

http://www.austin-texas-lawyers-attorney…
http://www.san-diego-lawyer-attorney-per…
http://www.san-antonio-texas-lawyers-att…
http://legal-advice-library.info/blog
http://www.las-vegas-nevada-lawyer-attor…
http://www.brokerforyou.com/san-diego-re…
“Possible reform of court dress” Archived ,Wayback Machine.
"Lord Chief Justice models new gown for judges". Telegraph.co.uk. 1
"Judges give new robes a dressing-down". Telegraph.co.uk.
. "Objection! Judges reject new robes". Rajan, Amol
Situation in Other Countries
Dress code is a part of dignity and professionalism with little exception. The outfit of
Judges and Advocates with judicial robes seems a mark of dignity and loyalty
towards court and justice. Americans refused to adopt the judicial attire of the British
after independence. Almost all countries in the Indian subcontinent are in debt to the
British for the development of their jurisprudence including dress code. Even, the
British has relaxed wearing judicial costumes but these countries including Pakistan
have slight headache to suit the dress code for lawyers as per climatic conformity
and culture even after the departure of the British. India has modified dress code for
lawyers to a tiny extent but the practice is still like colonized India reminding silent
domination of the British. This article is a venture to explore the historical chronicles
of the judicial attire across the world and theirs recent changing trends and practices
with a view to seek a meaningful transformation in Pakistan.
Undeniably, the role of the British for the legal development in their former colonies
is much acclaimed except in the USA and there is less scope to criticize their role in
the subcontinent. But the wind of change is blowing all across the globe including the
United Kingdom relating to the dress code. The English judiciary has long been
regarded as a bastion of conservative mores and sartorial continuity (Independent,
2009). Nonetheless, it has revised its judicial costumes. In November 21, 2011 the
President of the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) in a press notice revised the dress code
at the UKSC. According to the new guidance lawyers appearing at the UK's highest
court set up in October, 2009 will no longer have to wear the traditional wigs and
gowns5. The purpose of the new costume in line with the court’s goal is to make the
court as accessible as possible extending the court’s commitment to providing an
appropriate environment for considered discussion of legal issues. Even if all
advocates in a case agree, they may dispense with part or all of court dresses.
Supreme Court justices wear no legal costume. The relaxed dress code would also
apply to advocates appearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
(JCPC). Judges and lawyers appearing in criminal courts still wear traditional wigs
and gowns but they can be dispensed in cases involving children. The Supreme
Court move followed a request by the UKSC/JCPC User Group, which represents
professional users of the court, for an extension of the practice already adopted in
family cases where advocates customarily appear unrobed. The official notice
anticipated that some advocates will not wish to take advantage of this dispensation
while others may prefer to reduce their legal dress to a simple gown, or to appear
without legal dress at all. In 2008, Britain’s Lord Chief Justice created a simpler style
of court dress in which judges in civil and family cases in England and Wales were
stopped wearing wigs (Guardian,2008).
During the early history of the United States, the court dress of judges and practicing
lawyers closely mirrored British dress code of the 18th century. After the revolution
many of the founders including Thomas Jefferson wanted to purge their nation of any
symbols of the old English aristocratic order terming it as a rejected system (Glenn
W. 1956). In the then time the judicial wigs were banned but the robes were retained
as part of compromise. The practice fell out of favour and died out by the mid-

5Gordon Cathy (2011) Supreme Court Lawyers Allowed to Dress Down, The Independent November
21 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-lawyers-allowed-to-dress-down-
6265567.html
nineteenth century when the states and feds began to increasingly harmonize and
from then on almost every judge in America has started to wear a standardized black
robe over a formal business suit. Today, generally judges of both state and federal
courts are free to select their own courtroom attire. The most common choice is a
plain black robe which covers the torso and legs, with sleeves. Female judges will
sometimes add to the robe a plain white collar similar to that used in academic
dress. Beneath the robes business attire is standard coupled with a shirt as well as
tie for men and a woman's suit and stockings for women. The USA as a federal
country further left regulation of judicial costume to the jurisdiction of the individual
states. Many states especially in the South shared Jefferson’s original mentality and
had their judges wear no official costume for quite a long period of time. Despite the
standardization there are still some quaint exceptions to the black robe hegemony.
Despite no fixed dress code in the court premises for Attorneys in USA, there are
some peculiar dress codes in some states in the Federal country. In New Mexico,
USA general public are not allowed in the court rooms dressed with shorts, tank or
halter-tops, muscle shirts and T-shirts with indecent words or graphics. Lenore
Nesbitt, the first female judge appointed to the U.S. Southern District of Florida, used
to send women out of her courtroom for wearing open- toed shoes. Allegheny
County Common Pleas Judge David R. Cashman orders attorneys out of his
courtroom if he feels they’re underdressed. Usually when an attorney who wore
casual clothes to the office that day is summoned to court unexpectedly. All
witnesses appearing in United States District Court in the Eastern District of
Washington are asked to dress appropriately avoiding wearing shorts, tank tops and
sandals. An Alabama judge held a defendant in contempt of court for wearing saggy
pants showing butt before the court. The judge also jailed the person for three days
and instructed him to buy pants that fit or at least get a belt to hold up pants so that
underwear doesn’t show.
Like America, Canadian judges do not wear wigs and long robes. Canada used to
wear British styled robes before 2008. Despite its British heritage Canadians have
reconstructed a society based on their own aesthetics rather than copy blindly from
the British. Similarly, justices of the Canadian province of Ontario's Superior Court of
Justice are no longer addressed as "My Lord," or "My Lady," but are now addressed
as "Your Honour." 6
In Australia court dress varies according to jurisdictions of courts from federal to
state levels. Plain black robes have been worn over normal attire since 1988, when
the High Court abandoned the previous court dress of black silk robes, bar jackets,
jabots or bands and full-bottomed wigs and lace cuffs on formal occasions and
bench wigs for ordinary business. Wigs were abolished in Western Australia for both
judges and lawyers in all courts in 2010. Stipendiary Magistrates and justices of the
peace do not robe, other than in New South Wells where they have worn a black
robe over normal business attire since 2005. Prior to 2010, Barristers did not robe
before the Federal Magistrates Court. Barristers are now expected to robe for most
hearings, but not for interlocutory or interim matters. Wigs full-bottomed or otherwise
are not worn on any occasion. Aside from these countries one or two countries have

6 Ontario Justice Education Network (undated) Handout: Traditions of the Courts

http://www.ojen.ca/sites/ojen.ca/files/sites/default/files/resources/Traditions%20of%20the%20Courts.p
df
eliminated the tradition of wearing elaborate judicial robes altogether. In Greece and
Scandinavia, for example, a suit is fine to wear during any legal proceeding.
In South Africa judges wear British-style robes, although Dutch influences can also
be seen as a legacy of Dutch colonialism. High Court judges of South Africa wear
black robes to hear civil cases and appeals but red and black robes are used during
criminal cases. In the post apartheid South Africa special blue robes are designed for
constitutional court judges. At the end of 2004, the Council of the Law Society of
South Africa (LSSA) decided court attire for advocates with effect from April 1, 2005.
As per the new dress code, an advocate whether appearing in the constitutional
court, High court, Magistrate court or in other courts s/he will be dressed with a white
shirt or a blouse with a bib, a black jacket, an attorney’s gown and a dark trouser or
skirt. Now in many African court dresses are lightweight simply because the full outfit
would be too hot for most people to wear in that climate. In Kenya, a country of the
East Africa in a judge’s colloquium in 2011, it is decided that judges will no longer be
referred to as “my Lord” rather to be referred as “Your Honour” and wigs will be
discarded with immediate effect (Nation, 2011). Terming the current dress code
uncomfortable owing to unbearable heat the colloquium decided to a lighter robe for
the judicial officers sensing the necessity of robes as a mark of dignity and respect to
courts.
Like much of the former colonial countries the black outfit has stayed with the
lawyers in India, although under section 49 of the Advocates Act of 1961, the judicial
dress should be prescribed in keeping pace with the climatic conditions. But the
practice is quite different showing the colonial hangover. But, in the wake of
movement from lawyers’ community, the Bar Council of India, in a circular in 2001,
dispense with the coat from March 15 to June 15 to lower court lawyers. In spite of
such relaxation, most lawyers still adhere to the dress code throughout the year,
although subordinate courts are almost never air-conditioned. In another move the
Bar Council of India by a resolution in 2006, threw out the phrase “My Lordship” or
“My Lord" addressing the judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court in favour of
“Your Honour”, “Honourable Court” or just “Sir or Madam”. This change followed the
acceptance of the more socialistic political ideology prevalent in modern Indian
society, which has dedicated itself to ending the hierarchies that the legal system
reflects and reinforces. But still the new changes are not widely accepted and
practiced because of embedded habit and partly out of fear of falling in disfavour with
judges. Two writ petitions were filed with Delhi High Court in 2001 seeking change in
the dress code of advocates and seeking restraint of senior advocates in India from
wearing the Queens Council’s gown of England but both of them dismissed by the
court terming meritless and misconceived.
Most of the Muslim countries in the Middle East tend to follow anti-western dress
code for lawyers. Judges in these countries wear very simplistic costumes
denouncing fancy court room dress as western practice. In Afghanistan and in Iran
chief justice wear white and black turbans apart from traditional robes. Judges in
Libya and Egypt simply wear green sashes over the business suits terming green as
the colour of justice in Islam.
Not only in South Asia, even in the United States, the judges wear Black robe and
the origin of that can be traced to British aristocracy, a system that ensured that the
most privileged have the highest positions of power. Thomas Jefferson, the third US
President, and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) was of
the view that judges should wear suits which he thought was formal enough to show
that judges were serious about their role. Jefferson, being an equalitarian, did not
wish to overemphasize majesty of the law. He abhorred aristocracy and wanted
judges to dress the way everyone else did, and to be distinguished only by their role.
However, John Adams, a lawyer, wanted to keep the distinction of special judicial
attire, including the striking red robes and white wigs favored in the British courts.
Finally, Adam got the robes, but not the wigs.
Today, in United Kingdom, the lawyers who have to appear before the highest court
are allowed to appear in formal dress, traditional dress has been discarded. The
advocates in cases to be heard at the Supreme Court in London are able to
"dispense with any or all of the elements of traditional court dress". The reasons
given for this transformation are “to underline the court's commitment to providing an
appropriate environment and it is in line with the court's goal to make this process as
accessible as possible." The lawyers in the family court customarily appeared
unrobed in the traditional attire; they wear formal suits to make it less intimidating.
In many Middle Eastern countries, judges prefer to wear a simplistic costume while
denouncing fancy Western robes. Africa and Australia have changed their dress
code. In Canada, court dress is identical to the one previously worn in England
except the wig. The Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada and the
Tax Court require barristers to appear in gown5. The donning of business attire is
acceptable by barristers appearing in chambers and in the provincial and territorial
courts. The Court dress in Malaysia is based on English court dress, with some
modifications. In China, business suits or black gowns (with red stripe on the front)
are replacing the military look of the Chinese court system. In Sweden, there is no
official court dress for judges and they do not wear gowns. Judges usually wear an
ordinary suit. In India, a more digging reveals that petitions have been filed by
individual lawyers before the respective High courts of Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Court, after which certain
relaxations have been made. For example, a circular was issued by the Bar Council
of India in 2001 that allows lower court lawyers to dispense with the coat from March
15 to June 15 except for the ones appearing before the High Courts and the
Supreme Court and recently this has been reaffirmed by the Bar Council11. The
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently issued and order directing lawyers to dress
appropriately. Yet, most lawyers religiously adhere to the dress code throughout the
year, although subordinate courts are almost never air-conditioned. A petition has
also been filed in the court regarding distinction between the gowns worn by the
senior counsels and other advocates
Further, a Pune-based organization Human Rights and Law Defenders (HRLD) in
2002 carried out a survey of 120 lawyers at Pune's district session court to
determine the reaction around this `sartorial protocol’ of wearing black coats in peak
summer season. It observed that nearly half of the respondents agreed that the
current dress code was not suited to the Indian climate, around two-thirds failed to
appreciate the health ramifications of the black coat. Only 20 percent of the lawyers
made use of the exemption; 30 percent were aware of the fact that it is a health
hazard, but still continued to wear it. 10 percent wear it because it they think that it
sets them apart from the common man, while 30 percent was unaware of such
exemption. Peculiarly, while more than 86 percent said a dress code was necessary,
65 per cent also claimed that the current one had become more of a status symbol
and served no real purpose. Recently, a few of the senior advocates did raise their
voice against black coats, but no further action has been taken on the same 7.ii

Probing Further
Nevertheless, to further analyse the mystery behind the black coat, I decided to
discuss the same with a few of lawyers and their clients within the court premises.
My interest and curiosity to dig deeper made me to conduct interviews with 54
lawyers and 52 clients, and almost 20 researchers, professors and other people
associated with the profession; both men and women from different age groups.
Some of the interesting observations are made on both the sides – in favour and
against the use of black coats. Many of the lawyers (almost 40 percent), especially
stalwarts one, prefer wearing black blazers even during killing heat of summer,
however, a few of younger ones (45 percent) do agree that wearing the black coat in
summers do cause rashes and is making a major impact on their health.

7 Narayanan Vivek (2014) Lower Court Lawyers May Avoid Black Coats in Summer, The Hindu July
26, Chennai http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/lower-court-lawyers-may-
avoid-black-coats-in-summer/article6251080.ece
The Indian Express (2013) Soaring Mercury sees Lawyer red over Black Coats March 9th Kochi
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/article1494186.ece
Dana India (2006) Order, order, it is summer time March 19 http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-
order-order-it-is-summer-time-1018746
9 http://dnasyndication.com/showarticlerss.aspx?nid=lsD7NGlkS9qMKSQyPCenZw==
Soni Nikunj (2009) Just Chill and take off Your Courts, Guj HC tells Lawyers March 27 DNA India
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-just-chill-and-take-off-your-coats-guj-hc-tells-lawyers-1243079
11 Legal Era (2014) Black Courts not Compulsory for Lower Court Lawyers July 28
http://www.legalera.in/news-deals/atn/others/item/14014-black-coats-not-compulsory-for-lower-court-
lawyers-bci.html
Tripathi Shishir (2013) HC dressing-down for dist court lawyers: Wear proper dress, The Indian
Express, October 1 http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/hc-dressingdown-for-dist-court-lawyers-
wear-proper-dress/1176696/
JR Prashar v BCI decision 9th July 2002 AIR 2002 Delhi 482
Kabra Harsh (2010) Black Armour of Law, The Hindu May 30, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-
paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/black-armour-of-law/article790666.ece
The Times of India (2009) Black coat gives us Identity, Says Lawyers, Pune edition May 12
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Black-coats-give-us-identity-say-
lawyers/articleshow/4511551.cms
Venkadesan S (2011) Sewn to those Black Coats and Robes, The Indian Express, July 7
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/article415943.ece?service=print
Advocate Ashok Aggarwal quoted in the Hindu May 30 opcit.
18 Yamini P (2014) Senior Male Advocates in HC chases a Skirt Controversy, DNA Syndication
March 23
http://dnasyndication.com/showarticlerss.aspx?nid=LFvxfOP6g93dPulsPXSkakNt6Xiq8Q0sfdQkfEZx
ovLLv4iM=
Gulati Sumegha (2014) A nun-lawyer’s habit starts a dress code debate in Delhi, The Indian Express
April 18th http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/a-nun-lawyers-habit-starts-court-dress-
code-debate-in-delhi/
Raman Anuradha (2013) Wrap Up the case: Of the Advocate’s Robe, Delhi Heat and a Tweet,
Outlook May 27 http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?285452
Anand Deevakar (2011) Colonial Legacy – In Black and White: Lawyers want respite from the black
robes during summer March 24, Governance Now http://governancenow.com/views/columns/colonial-
legacy-black-and-white
The Lawyers’ Opinion
Black coat or the black robe, as per 56 percent of the lawyers lends seriousness to
their identity and provides a unique visual character to their professional image. It
helps to build credibility and command respect from the clients and society, held
three-fourth of the respondents. Wearing a dress creates a sense of discipline
among lawyers and gives them the confidence to fight for justice opined 44 percent
lawyers. “I get a feeling of being an upholder of rights and justice once I put on the
coat. It gives me a sense of power. Also it reflects on my status as a qualified person
who is capable of handling a complicated legal issue”, suggests a young lawyer who
has been practicing for last two years. “It is a uniform that conveys the message of
authority, knowledge, meticulousness and steadiness”, added another lawyer who
has been practicing for six years. “Black colour is a symbol of the dignity, honour,
wisdom and justice and these are the values which any lawyer or the judge has to
keep up with. One cannot wear a tee shirt and a jean and come to this temple of
justice. You need to maintain the grace and the dignity of the profession. The Black
robe or coat has a symbolic value, and today, corporate sector is also promoting the
concept of power dressing for its employee so why not you maintain the same trend
in the courts too”. His colleague remarked, “Appearance plays an important role in
gaining success in today’s world. It is not just about looking good; it’s about looking
the part of this great system”. Around half of the respondents were of the opinion that
the black coat is now the universal symbol of legal profession. “Law is associated
with nobility, justice and peace, and to maintain that one has to take all steps”, says
a senior advocate.
About 20 percent of the lawyers interviewed felt that the uniform helps to mitigate
hierarchical status within the profession. “It acts as a leveler or an equalizer. A junior
lawyer as well as a senior lawyer both need to dress in a similar manner. Also, the
lawyers in these courts come from different backgrounds, in such situations, a junior
with little earnings and no background should not feel threatened by the one who is
experienced and may afford to dress well”, opined a senior lawyer. While responding
in favour of the Black coat, a senior woman lawyer argued, “Wearing nearly identical
black robes is a way of showing that all the judges are bound equally in their duty to
uphold the law and justice. The simplicity of their attire also symbolizes that the
judges' and lawyers’ are neutral and humble people and need to work as servants of
the people”.
About sixty-five percent lawyers were of the view that black represents neutrality. A
senior lawyer was of view that, “Now, you cannot call it as a symbol of slavery
because, the black coat has become a part of Indian practice and tradition after its
prolonged use. Even otherwise we all have been dressing in a foreign style –
wearing suits and boots that are foreign to Pakistani soil, so why are you now raising
the question? Will wearing Shalwar Kamiz makes me more Pakistani? No. It’s a
bigoted outlook. This dress code has become a solid identity of the legal professional
in Pakistan. It is meaningless to change this now”. While arguing further he added,
“You young lawyers are representative of pampered and spoiled generation. Look at
our time, we all have been wearing this for generations and now you think that it is
impractical. You people cannot do without ACs but we have survived and managed
our whole lives without these fancy items”. Another senior lawyer while agreeing to
him pondered, “Have you ever seen any lawyer falling sick in summer because he is
wearing the black coat, I haven’t, though people sometimes whine about heat?”
Another argument in favour of black coat put forward intelligently by a bright young
lawyer is that, “Lawyers wear black coat because they need to defend the case and
black is the colour of defence. It suggests that law is blind, and is only based on
weight of evidence and not on the background of the parties”. On a lighter tone, a
young lawyer adds, “It needs not to be washed every day, when you travel around in
the dusty climate of Lahore, the black colour hides it all”. However, a female lawyer
differs in opinion and argued that wearing such dress leads to hygiene issue as it
cannot be washed daily.
Around 30 percent respondents opined that the practice of wearing black coat in hot
summers is unfeasible and impractical in Pakistan. “It is uncomfortable and makes
me feel sick and dizzy in scorching heat, but one needs to wear it because it is a
professional compulsion”. “It feels like you are baking and roasting yourself in the
oven. And many a times, we have to work in situation where there is no electricity. I
get rid of it immediately as I came out of the court room” shares a woman lawyer.
“But why then the system has not been changed?” I asked. She countered that the
“people who have been following the system for ages or have grown up with the
system do not want to think of any other alternative because they feel insecure and
are not adaptable to new situations”. A senior lawyer who was in favour of changing
the system clarified that, “this denial to think out of the box and adapt to new realities
stems from the psychological over-dependence of lawyers on the black coat”.
Around one fourth respondents opine that this kind of uniform smothers practice
because the hierarchy is maintained through the choice of fabric, the cut and
tailoring besides the knowledge of English language. “Black is a colour of oppression
and an artifact of past that symbolizes nothing”, argued a lawyer.

Enforcing Dress Code Promotes Elitist, Hierarchical Patriarchal Culture

The dress code may lead to creation of an elitist, hierarchical and patriarchal culture
in the courts, hold 15 percent of the respondents. A female lawyer added that,
“Women lawyers in particular have to adhere to conservative rules when it comes to
dressing style, primarily because they rarely want to argue with a judge on the issue
of dress and secondly the environment within the court is not women friendly. You
may not want that a judge or the senior hates you or condemn you because of your
dress, because your clothing conveyed a lack of respect, or offended them in some
other manner. And after recent rape and sexual harassment cases, the environment
has become more hostile”. This has been highlighted in a controversy in High court
too. Failure to adhere to the dress code carries a greater threat than merely being
embarrassed in court. A female lawyer’s very existence may not be recognized if the
precise observances are not adhered to as highlighted in a recent debate created in
a subordinate court in Lahore where a lawyer nun wearing a black coat and a while
band over her habit appeared before the court. A woman lawyer explained that “It’s
hard to practice in the court, which is very much a boys’ club. Female lawyers
struggled hard to adhere to a careful balance of masculine and feminine values”. A
young female lawyer who has been practicing for three years elaborated that,
“Outside, the courts if I walk with this coat I sensed an authority, however, inside the
court premises, when I walk wearing this dress, that feeling is lost because I may be
doing trivial jobs for a senior. I abhor the compulsion of this incarceration”. Another
young lawyer Said “Two things come to my mind, one is Pakistan is a dusty place
and to cover their dresses, they are wearing the black coat, so even if it is dirty,
nobody will know, the second is when the lawyer looses a case and if his client is
going to be hanged, he can always wear the black court to the funeral”. One lawyer
remarked”. In astrology and in the occult texts, wearing a black garment is supposed
to reduce personal bias, and to improve impartiality and concentration. Some
religious rituals also require wearing of black garments for this purpose”. A lawyer
from Kasur stated “The cities are supposed to be a way away from nature. Hence,
only those judicial who work in cities wear black garments. There are courts in rural
areas of Pakistan. They never wear black garments”. A senior lawyer remarked “
Lawyers wear black coats in courts because it is their dress code, which also
indicates to human beings that law is blind so be vigilant in life always. Never commit
a crime; because you shall get nothing but darkness”.
Another lawyer said “Black indicates darkness may be in life or history. The lawyers
are agents to find out light / brightness (i.e. truth), So they wear block coat for
identification of agency. Let’s take it like this the black colour absorbs solar radiations
more than any other colour. The solar radiations in the court signifies heated
arguments. Various lawyers and judges should be so patient enough to listen all the
arguments going inside the court and to act in the correct direction. Well it is not only
the lawyers and judges but it is also the law goddess who wears a black strip across
the eyes. It is I think like asking why police wear khaki, doctors white coat, etc”. A
lawyer said “Recognition that’s what it is to immediately recognize the profession that
he\she follows. it is just like having your school symbol attached to your uniform to
help people recognize to which school you belong to”. Another lawyer said “There is
I think no logic and only selection. Black is a solemn color, sometimes signifying
mourning, death, for widows, and submission to priests. Black is also a noble color
as used by graduates and lawyers. After a while all this gets lost and we are just left
with a tradition. Because they obey to the judge finally. And the judge wear black
because he wants to send to prison instead of loving the people”.

Client’s Views relating to Black Coat of Lawyers

Interestingly, clients and those in academics, research and civil society have
different versions to share. For most of the clients, black robes or the black coats is
an icon of prestige, power, authority and intimidation. “As black ink writes the destiny
of people, so black coats and robes worn by the lawyers and judges can shape the
future of the clients whether as culprits or in providing relief depending on which side
one is standing”, sharply observed a woman client. “It is being said that ‘law is blind’
and cannot see anything without proofs and evidence, hence, the black coats
symbolize blindness” explained a client. The client’s perspective was vast ranging
from occult and astrology to their opinion about rights, authority, law and justice. “In
the courts, everything has to be laid out in black and white, therefore, lawyers and
judges wear black to give the message that no one can lie in the courts”, prudently
suggested a client. From the client’s perspectives, black coat is a tool to maintain
professional distance. “Black and white represents the two opposite ends. Black is
associated with dark, evil and corrupt while white is for purity and goodness. That is
why doctors wear white as they do the pious work of saving lives whereas black
coats for advocates as it is believed that they manipulate and mould the case in their
favour” revealed a client. “Black symbolizes despair, pain and death. A lawyer leads
to or prevent any of those depending on the case” stated a male client aged 38
years.
Around three fourth of the client respondents feel that are intimidated by the manner
in which lawyers dress and hold themselves. “Black is a colour on which nothing
works, a judge or a lawyer should not listen to anything else except truth”, says a
woman client. “In astrology and in the occult texts, wearing a black garment implies
curse and bad luck. Therefore, they say that the kachcharis (courts) are a curse you
get it because of your past bad karmas. Black coat is therefore a warning to improve
your karma in this birth” argued a male client. “Saturn is associated with black colour
and that represents an evil and lawyers and judges deal with evil all the day
therefore they wear black” explained another. “These professionals have to be very
dedicated to be able to withstand uncomfortable conditions for hours. They are tough
and capable of seemingly enormous tolerance for the intolerable”, admired a senior
old man.

Other Professionals’ Views

Most of the other professionals were of the view that the black coat tends to breed
an exaggerated sense of power, intimidation, mystification, alienation, exclusion and
coercion. “The dress instills fear in the minds of people and creates a distance
between the people from the lawyers. It hinders the concept of making judiciary
people-oriented or people friendly”, says a professor. “The lawyers are the first
contact for citizens who need to access justice, and creating such uniform codes
alienates them from the common people”. Former President of Lahore High Court
Bar, Syed Kaleem Khurshid opined that such symbolism in the courts should be
discarded. He justifies that “It is legacy of British and serves no purpose. If we must
indeed wear something formal, let it be short coats.” “It is a kind of social suicide”,
shared an expert. Justice Jawad S.Khawja , a retired chief justice of Pakistan in his
speeches often says that the language of the courts in Pakistan is foreign, the laws
are imported, and the dress is not ours. “Not having a dress code can jeopardize the
court's dignity,” he observed. “But it should be in tune with our circumstances and
psyche”, he added. While addressing the convocation in Lahore, the former
environment Minister called the practice of wearing a traditional gown as barbaric
and colonial. A division bench of Lahore High Court recently dismissed an intra-court
appeal requesting the court to bar waiters at restaurants from wearing black
suits. Justice Ayesha A Malik dismissed the petition saying that the court could not
issue directions on what citizens could or could not wear. The dress code for the bar
and the bench is prescribed in the High Court Rules and Orders, General Chapter,
under the head Dress of Advocates appearing in High Courts; and Supreme Court
Rules 1980 in Part 1 under Order IV Rule 8 and Supreme Court (Court Dress and
Mode of Dress) Order 1980, was the contention of Ahmed / the petitioner who is a
lawyer himself. He submitted to the court that the uniform worn by professionals
including doctors and lawyers had an independent and distinct identity in society.
Other examples of uniforms include ones worn by the armed forces, the police,
Rescue-1122 staff and traffic wardens among others. He said there was no overlap
of uniform for any other profession. The dress code represents the profession, he
said. The idea is to allow people to connect a person with his profession by just
looking at them, he said. Similarly, the dress code for lawyers was exclusive. “We
are always supposed to wear it in courts. We are not allowed to plead or argue
cases before the court if we are not attired according to the dress code.”
Ahmed asked the court to set aside the single bench’s order and ban workers in the
hospitality industry from wearing lawyers’ uniform. The statutory uniform was
exclusively for the bench and the bar, he said. While dismissing the previous petition,
Chief Justice Ijazul Ahsan had observed that the garb worn by lawyers and judges
was neither a trade dress nor like the uniforms of the police or the armed forces. He
said it was clear that uniforms were protected by statutes, laws, rules or regulation.
The dress code for lawyers and judges was common apparel and without distinctive
features and therefore could not be termed a uniform. He observed that it wasn’t
protected by a statute either. Citizens are not and cannot be prohibited from wearing
black suits, regardless of whether they work at an office or a hotel, or participate in a
seminar or attend a dinner party, the judge had said. Justice Ahsan had said that
such a prohibition would not only be unenforceable but would also defeat common
sense. He said the counsel for the petitioner had failed to convince the court that his
rights were being infringed upon.

The Journey Continues….

This brings me to a question that has been rarely, if at all, asked amongst the legal
community: why do we still wear this uniform? There are only two arguments that I
have heard so far in support of this policy, which are:
1) it’s a universal symbol of the legal profession; and
2) it’s a long-standing tradition and the uniform has become recognisable in society
as that of the lawyer’s.
It will not be uncommon to come across aged, stalwart lawyers who will consider it
absurd to even think of changing the uniform. They stringently believe that if they,
along with several generations of lawyers, could make it through such conditions
then why can’t the young lawyers of today make it through as well? They will be
quick to point out the weak nature of today’s ‘kids’ and how spoilt they have become.
The problem with this argument is that if we extend this logic to other aspects of the
legal field, then lawyers should not be making use of computers for drafting court
documents, researching or storing data because our ancestors were able to practice
law without such innovations. If we were to expand on this logic even further, then
we should not be driving cars to court because our ancestors used to brave the sun’s
heat and commute on bicycles. The argument is simple: if we can make things
easier for ourselves, then why don’t we?
We need to overcome our misguided belief regarding the universality of the Western
legal system (and in this particular case, the British one). Tradition, in most cases —
not just with the lawyers’ uniform — is oppression masked under the grand narrative
of necessity and inevitability — a facade that prevents the victim from recognising
the ultimate ‘truth’ of his oppression. In simpler words: we do not NEED to follow the
British or the ‘universal’ example when it comes to the dress code of the courts.
There is precedent for changing uniforms of a profession. Take the Pakistani police
for example. The government has overhauled the traditional khaki uniform, which
dated back to pre-independence times. The rationale behind this change was that
the former get-up, along with the khaki fabric, made the uniform uncomfortable for
the police, especially during the summer. The government introduced a new
weather-friendly and comfortable uniform.
What I propose is not even that drastic a change that will shake up the country’s
legal framework. The legal community needs to shed the current uniform and adopt
a new weather-appropriate style of formal wear. As explained, the suit’s origins can
be traced to the need for clothing to be more comfortable in a formal environment.
We cannot simply wait for changes to occur in the outside world and then accept
them. We need to start innovating ourselves. I am no designer and to be honest I
have limited sense of fashion; however, I do not believe that coming up with a new
uniform will be a problem. We can come up with something that is tethered to our
cultural heritage. For that, we will also need to overcome our deeply ingrained
dichotomy of western clothing representing progress and our traditional dress (such
as the Shalwar Kameez) representing backwardness. We need to overcome this
national inferiority complex that we suffer at a subconscious level, of not being
capable of innovating or setting a new precedent.
In my opinion, if we are able to achieve that (at least with our lawyers’ uniform) then
we can be at the threshold of reconstructing a new, more culturally connected and
logically sound society. This change can lead to a domino effect that results in the
recapturing of other areas of society and public discourse that are being dominated
by the colonial mindset. But for now, the suit does not suit us8.

Rationales of Change of Dress Code with Climatic Compatibility in Pakistan

Many Lawyers and academicians debate whether the sanctity of the dress code
should give way to practicality. The cumbersome compulsion, combined with the
scorching heat is uncomfortable and unbearable during summer. They demand a
pattern of change with climatic adjustability to restructure our colonial institutions to
reflect our oriental culture and needs. Most lawyers in Pakistan are short in size,
brown or dark brown in screen and so with long robes they look ridiculous and aliens
to common people. Again the history, tradition, heritage, culture and social values of
people do not match with the existing dress code for lawyers. Moreover, elite lawyers
import judicial costume from Britain which is very expensive while average lawyers
use second hand ones for years. Pakistan is a country in which from March 15 to
October 15 a very hot and humid weather persists. Lawyers are to wear the dress
code for professional compulsion despite their disinterest. Load shedding in Pakistan
is more acute than even India. Weather condition in summer and in rainy season is
almost like India and sometimes hotter comparatively. So, in line with many countries
as said above Pakistan needs to change the dress code for lawyers or a relaxation
during the summer and rainy season. Government in Bangladesh in 2009 had
ordered male government employees to stop wearing suits, jackets and ties to save
electricity during hot months between March and November. In an Order the
government told the Ministers and employees not to turn their air- conditions below
24C. The order was reiterated in 2012 as a directory to save power but there is no
punishment for breach of such order. Like India there is no movement in Pakistan by
any lawyer’s body to change the dress code here as lawyers are busy with practice,
politics and position. Bar councils are the regulatory bodies of the advocates in
Pakistan, Supreme Court and High Courts are the guardian of the judiciary but no
initiatives are visible by any of the bodies to make the dress code comfortable and
suitable for all seasons. The fact is that 69 years of independence is a reasonable
length of time for us to restructure our colonial institutions in order to give us a true
sense of nationhood and to signal to our contemporary youth towards change we
need. I am very optimistic that we have the capacity to design a judicial costume
based on Pakistani aesthetics. What we need at the moment is a transformative
leadership to lead a cultural revolution. Pakistan has no cultural ties with Britain save
through colonization. Commonsense suggests that we have a strong justification to
cast away that cultural heritage compared to Canada, the US, Australia, India and
other Muslim countries.
Pakistan can take lesson from the British regarding relaxation of dress code. Prior to
change of the dress code in the UK, the Lord Chancellor’s consultation paper opines
that there is no justification for retaining working court dress on the grounds of
tradition alone. The paper said that courts are not a tourist attraction. Lord Chief
Justice Taylor of England opined that their judges' formal attire made them look

8On the matter of lawyers’ suits http://tribune.com.pk/story/422397/on-the-matter-of-lawyers-suits/

By Minaam Karim
"antique and slightly ridiculous" – in 1990. As a result, progressive change is felt to
be initiated or encouraged. Change is yet to take place in Pakistan because of
colonial mind set and attitude of policy-makers, bureaucrats, politicians and even
judges and Advocates. As regard change as a sociological issue requires absolute
commitment, honesty, perseverance, and modeling from the top-echelon of society
like political leaders as well as members of the civil society.
The change of dress code has taken places in many countries and the pattern of
change is not revolutionary rather evolutionary. Keeping in touch with UK and Indian
judiciary as these two have resemblances with Pakistan let’s dig out the possible
reasons for the change of the dress code. In India the evolutionary movement of
change for dress code started in the 1990s and still continuing creating debate on
dignity vs. discomfort for the existing dress code of lawyers. In India those who
favour the colonial dress code believed that the dress code gave a degree of
anonymity to judges and lawyers. The dress code is not merely believed to be a
status symbol but an integral part of the profession bringing out distinction, discipline,
decorum and dignity among lawyers and give them confidence to fight for justice. It
is also termed as a mark of dignity, legal fraternity and respect towards courts
differentiating the lawyers from other professionals (Menezes, 1996).
On the other hand, the opponent of the British- style costume finds valid grounds to
change the dress code or a relaxation of the dress code in summer and rainy
seasons for removing physical discomfort and the subsequent health hazards.
Probably, change of dress code and redesign of the same according to suitability of
climate will not hinder administration of justice. The creation of a new dress code
staying away from the legacy of the British attire may boost sub continental cultural
entity and heritage in the legal arena. As moral values and legal ethics have already
been well added into the legal profession the change in costume will not deteriorate
the standard of this profession. Sometimes, neckties get touch with curry and tea
stains, gowns are not dry-cleaned for long days, coats are not dry- cleaned and
ironed detracting the dignity that befits the profession. In the rainy season the long
robes get soaked with dirty water. Frequent power cuts and lack of power back ups
in the courts demand change of such dress code which stipulates five layers for male
lawyers and with a slightly dressed down version for female lawyers. In the
subordinate judiciary the situation is even worse for the lawyers and judges owing to
dearth of facilities but superior courts are spacious with more facilities comparably.
Medical opinion too finds the dress code for lawyers in India unreasonable. It
increases in body heat beyond a point lowers the appetite, slows down digestion as
well as stimulates dehydration risk. Dr. Rajon TD, a Mumbai based consultant
specialist in skin and sexually transmitted diseases says even low temperatures
clubbed with high humidity levels cause severe discomfort. Nalini Karunakaran, an
ayurvedic physician in India points black is a very unhealthy colour and being speedy
absorber of heat could lead to a breakdown of health in the long run and also may
results skin problems and orthopedic complications. Pakistan should share
experience from India for the modification of dress code in the country. It is notable
that, in a survey in the UK in 1992, 85% of the public felt that robes lent dignity to
court proceedings, 71% felt the emphasized the witness to tell the truth and
ultimately 79% were in favour of retaining robes. In another study was initiated in
2003 to measure how court dress impacts public confidence. The study stressed
negative effects of formal attire for victims and witnesses recommending change with
the demand of time. Eventually, the UK changed the judicial dress code in an
evolutionary way. Similarly, in a study in India in 1990s, around 55.6% felt the black
coat was completely unsuitable for the tropical Indian climate while 86% said dress
code for lawyers was necessary and around 65.2 percent felt their dress code had
merely become a status symbol. The result of the study reflected when Indian Bar
Council relaxed dress code for lawyers, although to a little extent.

Conclusion
Like law, the black coat is full of fascination and admiration and somehow there is
also an enormous compassion for this mystical object. Yet, considering different
views shared by different category of people several questions have been raised. Is
there is a need to change the official dress code? Is black coat a tool of oppression
or liberation? Do we need to really overcome our belief regarding the universality,
supremacy and continuity of the imperial legacy in the manner as it has been
continued for the past few decades? Is it mute and unquestioning blind obedience for
rules and traditions imposed by colonial rulers? Is black coat of the lawyers’ uniform
a form of oppression masked under the grand narrative of necessity and
inevitability? Are the lawyers treating themselves with cruelty while knowing and
accepting the situation which is harmful when they dress up in a costume that is not
suitable for the climate and weather of our country? Is it because of false prestige
attached to the black coat that we want to continue with it? Is it a sign of the servile
colonial mentality of our legal system? Is this dress creating a hurdle in formulating a
people’s friendly judiciary and the legal system? Can by not wearing the black coat
will one be able to experience new ideas and practice as vociferously? All these
questions are still boggling my mind. Do you have answers or will you like to give
your creative, out of box suggestions to resolve this mystery!
In modern-day Pakistan, the black and white suit is the well-recognised uniform of
the lawyer. The British Raj introduced this court dress in South Asia and this tradition
has been upheld by the Pakistani legal fraternity, albeit with some minor variations
(such as the doing away with the wig).
The origins of the modern-day suit can be traced to the 19th century Regency
Britain, an era, characterised by inter alia distinctive trends in British fashion. One of
the trends in fashion was the simplification of the elaborately embroidered and
jeweled formal clothing of the nobility into a much more comfortable formal wear.
This led to the conception of the modern day suit, which eventually became a strictly
followed formality in the subsequent Victorian era. A lot of factors can be taken into
account for this change in fashion such as the decreasing power of the nobility and
the need for a new up and coming industrial elite to be accommodated in the
corridors of power.
There is precedent for changing uniforms of a profession. Take the Pakistani police
for example. The government has done overhauling the traditional khaki uniform,
which dated back to pre-independence times. The rationale behind this change was
that the current get-up, along with the khaki fabric, made the existing uniform
uncomfortable for the police, especially during the summer. The government
introduced a new weather-friendly and comfortable uniform.
What I propose is not even that drastic a change that will shake up the country’s
legal framework. The legal community needs to shed the current uniform and adopt
a new weather-appropriate style of formal wear. As explained, the suit’s origins can
be traced to the need for clothing to be more comfortable in a formal environment.
We cannot simply wait for changes to occur in the outside world and then accept
them. We need to start innovating ourselves. I am no designer and to be honest I
have no sense of fashion; however, I do not believe that coming up with a new
uniform will be a problem. We can come up with something that is tethered to our
cultural heritage. For that, we will also need to overcome our deeply ingrained
dichotomy of Western clothing representing progress and our traditional dress (such
as the Shalwar Kameez) representing backwardness. We need to overcome this
national inferiority complex that we suffer at a subconscious level, of not being
capable of innovating or setting a new precedent.
In my opinion, if we are able to achieve that (at least with our lawyers’ uniform) then
we can be at the threshold of reconstructing a new, more culturally connected and
logically sound society. This change can lead to a domino effect that results in the
recapturing of other areas of society and public discourse that are being dominated
by the colonial mindset. But for now, the suit does not suit us.
Dress code expresses sanctity and commitment of the lawyers toward judicial
institutions and enhances their responsibility for the profession. But if the dress code
is compatible with season, customs and cultural spirit and principles then the
commitment, integrity and respect concerning the noble profession may be
expedited. Trend of change of the costume jurisprudence both in the western and
oriental countries is a beckon of hope in the direction of liberalism shifting from
conservatism. Interestingly, in recent years, English reforms sought to project
modernization and simplicity, to ensure that their own citizens maintained respect for
their legal system. It is also important to not overlook simple logistical reasons for
changing attire. Perhaps most importantly, the distinctive black robes can serve as a
reminder to judges of the importance of their responsibility to administer justice and
not perpetuate bias. On the other hand, judges who become less formal by removing
robes or simplifying them might appear less pompous and more human. The
negative consequences of wearing formal attire seem to weigh heavier today. In
Europe or in America power cuts is not a problem and climate is not hot whereas
frequent power cuts is an acute problem in India and Pakistan. Most of the lawyers in
Bangladesh have adapted with the dress code against their intention while some of
them feel embarrassed terming it unsuitable and disgusting but yet to raise any
concern. Most of the colonial countries have changed their dress code but Pakistan
is the glaring exception to this. Even UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, India have
shown the pattern as well as way towards change of the judicial costume recently
and USA changed it long ago. So, the change of dress code is inevitable in Pakistan
keeping pace with its climate, heritage and cultural, social and moral values.

i Zafar Iqbal Kalanauri, Mediator & Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Adjunct Faculty Law
at SAHSOL, Lahore University of Management Sciences (L.U.M.S.), SAF Center, #3 - 3rd Floor,
8-Fane Road Lahore 54000, Pakistan, Cell: (92) 300-4511823 & 314-4224411 E-mail:
[email protected] ; Web: http://www.zklawassociates.com

ii Abdulraheem, Nimatallah Modupe. (2006). The Hijab, Barristers’ Dress Code and Religious
Freedom in the Legal Profession in Nigeria, IIUM Law Journal, Vol. 14(2).
Baker, J.H. Baker. (1978). A History of English Judges’ Robes’, Costume 12, pp. 27-39.
BBC (2011). UK Supreme Court Throws Out Legal Dress.
Civil Rules and Orders, (1982). Volume-1, Government Publication.
Ferguson, Glenn W. (1956). To Robe or Not to Robe? A Judicial Dilemma, 19 Journal of American
Judicature Society.
Guardian, The (2008). Legal Argument as Judges Ditch Wigs.
Haque, Emdadul. (2012). The Tradition of Lawyers Dress Code, Law and Our Rights, The Daily
Star.
8. Independent, The. (2009). Objection! Judges Rejects New Robes.
Kabra, Harsh. (2010). Black Armour of Law, The Hindu.

Mahapatra, Dhananjay. (2011). Dress Code for Litigants? Bombay High Court Believes So, The
Times of India.

Menezes, Saira. (1996). Dignity vs. Discomfort, Lawyers Debate Whether the Sanctity of their Dress
Code Should Give Way to Practicality.

Mutunga, Willy. (2011). Dressing and Addressing the Kenyan Judiciary, Kenya Law Reports.

Nation, The. (2011). Wigs Out in Court after Changes in Judicial Dress Code.

Phillips, Fred. (1978). The Evolving Legal Profession in the Commonwealth, New York: Oceana
Publication, pp.115-116.
Rahman, Romel. (2010). Costumes of Judges and Advocates are Not Season Friendly, Ain-Odhikar
(Law and Rights), The Daily Prothom Alo, P. 27.

The Appellate Division Rules, (1988). The Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Government Publication.

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, (1972). Article 23.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (1948). Article 29 (2).

th
Waker, R. J. (1980). The English Legal System, London, Butterworth 5 Edition p. 234.
20. Yablon,
Charles M. (1995). Judicial Drag: An Essay on Wigs, Robes, and Legal Change, Wisconsin Law
Review .