The words “such other powers” used in Rule 16(f) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 cannot be stretched to mean to include the power to frame any rule or issue any instruction to prescribe the dress code for the advocates – R. Rajesh Vs. Union of India – Madras High Court
February 8, 2023
Hon’ble High Court held that the wearing of “gown” is only optional and not mandatory before any courts other than the Supreme Court or the High Courts. Further, the power conferred under Rule 51 of the NCLT Rules, is for the purpose of discharging its functions under the Act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and equity and is not an enabling provision to be read along with Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, which deals only with right to legal representation, and cannot be meant to confer upon it the power to prescribe the dress code, more so when it is contrary to the Bar Council of India rules. Similarly, the words "such other powers" used in Rule 16(f) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 has to be read keeping in mind the later part of the rule dealing with the administrative power of the President as head of the Tribunal, while dealing with the staff, and cannot be stretched to mean to include the power to frame any rule or issue any instruction, in the nature of the one impugned, to prescribe the dress code for the advocates. Such instruction, in fact also runs contrary to Rule 124 of the NCLT Rules, which states that the professionals shall follow the dress code prescribed in their code of conduct. Therefore, the impugned proceedings in file No. 25/02/2017 dated 14.11.2017 is without authority and is hence illegal.
At this juncture, it was brought to our knowledge that the proceedings dated 27.01.2023 has been issued by the NCLT, by which, the order impugned herein has been modified, with the effect of superseding the earlier instruction with regard to dress code for advocates, and the present order merely follows the Bar Council of India Rules. The proceedings dated 27.01.2023 is taken on record. However, the impugned order, though withdrawn, will stand quashed on the basis of the reasoning as adumbrated hereinbefore.
