JUNE 17, 2026

Robes Relaxed

By Vijay Kumar

IN his Office Memorandum F.No-GSTAT/Misc.Work 88/2025-26/387; Dated - 23.05.2026, the GSTAT Registrar conveyed:

The Hon'ble President, GSTAT has directed that the requirement of wearing robes by Members, staff, legal representatives, and tax professionals during court proceedings and hearings before all Benches of the GSTAT shall remain relaxed until further orders. Professionals/Advocates should be presentable while appearing before the Tribunal in-person or in virtual mode.

Now, wearing robes, is relaxed. What should they wear? Courtroom fashion, like GST law, thrives on ambiguity.

A year ago, the Registrar had conveyed in his F. No. GSTAT/Procedural Rules/24-25/07; Dated: 30.06.2025

1. Hon'ble President and Members, Judicial, shall don the dress prescribed for Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble High Court, as the case may be, without the gown.

2. Hon'ble Technical Members shall wear white or striped or black trousers with black coat over white shirt and black necktie or buttoned up black coat. The female Technical Members shall wear black over coat over black, white or lightly printed saree. Any Hon'ble Member wearing turban shall wear white or light-coloured turban.

There was a time when the Members in the CESTAT used to wear two types of dresses in the Court. The Judicial Members, who were all former lawyers or judges wore the dress worn by High Court judges like a coat and collar band, while the technical members wore a black coat on a white shirt with a tie. If the Member was wearing a tie, you knew that he was not a judicial member.

For appearance before the Tribunal, there was no dress code at all for the Departmental Representatives (DRs).

Somewhere around 2006, Justice Abichandani as President prescribed a dress code for the Members and Departmental Representatives. The Members (both judicial and technical) were to wear the dress of High Court judges - coat, collar band, gown et al. Now the technical members also started looking like judicial members enhancing the majesty of the court.

I asked Justice Abichandani whether he had the right to prescribe the judicial dress worn by lawyers and judges for the technical members who were not lawyers. He told me "lawyers have to wear a certain dress did not mean that others are barred from wearing it. I told my members who were sceptical, I am allowing you to wear the lawyer dress even though you are not a lawyer; enjoy it".

It was nice to see the Members of the Tribunal dressed like High Court judges and the DRs with black coats. A DR asked me, "what will I do with this coat after I am transferred out?' A former DR told me, "It would have been difficult for me to organise for a coat if I were to wear one when I was the DR". Until then, DRs used to wear whatever fancied them. After all, who would pay for the coat? Salaries were low and coats were expensive in those days.

In 2016, one Rameswor Chowdhury moved a petition before the Calcutta High Court that expert/technical members of the Tribunal (NGT) should not be allowed to wear the dress of the judges. Lawyers representing the state opined that an expert member can't wear a collar or gown. The court then sought affidavits from all parties, including the ministry. In its affidavit, the ministry stated that the Centre has no role to play in the matter as it is for the NGT chairman to decide. An under-secretary in the ministry, mentioned in the affidavit that lawyers and judges are not the only ones to wear collar bands and gowns. They were also worn by doctors, clergymen and others. The bench experts are distinguished persons in their respective fields and competent to deal with matters of environmental protection, conservation of forests and other natural resources. Therefore, there shouldn't be any objection letting them wear collar bands and gowns on the bench. The petitioner submitted that they should not be allowed to wear collars and gowns as they do not belong to the legal profession. The case is still pending in the High Court.

In 2014, the President of the Tamil Nadu Federation of Women Lawyers wrote to the Bar Council of India seeking exemption for advocates from wearing gowns during summer, keeping in mind the heat. In response, the Council clarified that under the Bar Council of India Rules, "wearing of advocate's gown shall be optional except when appearing in the Supreme Court or in High Courts." Further, "except in Supreme Court and High Courts during summer, wearing of black coat is not mandatory." The Council then directed the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to circulate these rules among Bar Associations to remove confusion.

Though it may indeed be uncomfortable to wear black coats during summer, it is hardly edifying to see lawyers agitating on the streets in full black coats and robes - in some cases, even throwing stones at policemen.

Can a Tribunal prescribe a dress code for lawyers?

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) issued an order stating: "Wearing of gown would be necessary w.e.f. 20th November 2017 in all the benches of NCLT for Hon'ble President, Members and Advocates." This order was challenged before the Madras High Court, which on 8 February 2023 held that only High Courts have the authority to frame rules regarding the dress code for advocates appearing before them and the tribunals subordinate to them. Tribunals, therefore, have no power to prescribe dress codes for advocates. The Court also noted that wearing a gown is optional before all courts except the Supreme Court and High Courts. The NCLT order was quashed, although the Tribunal had already rectified its mistake on 27 January 2023, shortly before the judgment.

A Dress Code for Chartered Accountants

If lawyers can have a professional dress - however unsuitable it may be for a tropical country - why not chartered accountants? There was a time when CAs appeared before Income Tax Officers in buttoned-up coats. But with the proliferation of both CAs and ITOs, this informal dress code gradually gave way to casual and sometimes flashy attire. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) issued a recommendatory dress code to ensure dignity and promote professional identity. It suggests that male members may wear Indian national dress or full-sleeved shirts with trousers and shoes; female members may wear saree, salwar-kameez, or trousers with shirt; and members are encouraged to wear a suit or blazer with a tie, preferably ICAI-branded, when appropriate.

Courts and Appropriate Attire

Courts across India have repeatedly expressed concern about inappropriate attire worn by government officials, lawyers, and even journalists.

In June 2022, a Patna High Court judge reprimanded a Bihar IAS officer, asking, "You think this is a cinema hall?" when the officer appeared without a coat. The officer responded that there was no official instruction requiring a blazer or coat in court.

As early as 1933, in Emperor v. Chhaganlal Ishwardas Shah, the Bombay High Court dealt with a case where an assessor was fined for improper dress. The Court held that while attire may be a matter of taste, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to impose such a fine, as no rules prescribed dress for assessors.

In 2017, the Himachal Pradesh High Court objected to a lady government officer appearing in a multi-coloured checked shirt and jeans, observing that slackness in attire undermines judicial decorum.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case because a senior Rajasthan bureaucrat was not dressed in a "proper" manner, remarking that bureaucrats are expected to wear sober and decent attire irrespective of formal rules.

The Bihar Chief Secretary was once denied a hearing for appearing in black trousers and a bandhgala coat, and the Jharkhand High Court objected to its Chief Secretary appearing in a colourful printed saree, prompting the State Government to issue instructions against casual attire in court.

A Central Excise Superintendent was summoned to appear before a CESTAT Bench. The Bench was happy that he was dressed in his uniform.

Jeans, T-Shirts, and Judicial Displeasure

The Guwahati High Court adjourned a matter because the petitioner's counsel appeared in jeans, even directing police to escort him out of the campus. The Bombay High Court once questioned a journalist covering proceedings in jeans and a T-shirt, asking whether such attire was part of "Bombay culture."

In 1986, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud asked a woman assistant of an advocate to leave the courtroom because she was wearing tight jeans. He later clarified that it was not the jeans themselves but her manner of strutting around with a comb sticking out of her hip pocket that he found inappropriate.

Justice Krishna Iyer would have happily sat on the Bench in a dhoti - but a club wouldn't let him in. Courts may tolerate dhotis; clubs, never.

The Office Memorandum from the GSTAT Registrar says, Advocates should be presentable while appearing before the Tribunal in-person or in virtual mode.

How to be presentable?

The Office Memorandum wisely avoids details, perhaps fearing that if it prescribed specifics, half the Bar would immediately protest on the streets - in full black coats, of course.

In virtual mode, advocates must resist the temptation to pair a crisp shirt with pyjamas - because Murphy's Law ensures that the camera will fall, the laptop will tilt, or the child will enter the room at precisely the wrong moment.

Covid, Coats, and Confusion

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Supreme Court judges appeared via video-conferencing without coats or robes. The Chief Justice explained that coats and robes provided additional surfaces for the virus to cling to.

A junior lawyer, confused about what to wear during Covid-era hearings, was advised by a senior, "Just wear a mask." He followed the advice - only to discover that everyone else had also worn shirts and trousers.