The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that women advocates cannot appear in court with Hijab. The decision, delivered on December 13, 2024, by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, aligns strictly with the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, emphasising the necessity of identity verification and adherence to courtroom decorum.
The case arose from an incident on November 27, 2024, when Advocate Syed Ainain Qadri appeared before the court in a domestic violence case while fully veiled. Justice Rahul Bharti, who was presiding over the matter at the time, asked her to remove the veil to confirm her identity, a standard requirement for advocates appearing in court. However, Qadri refused, asserting her right to wear the veil as part of her personal and religious freedom.
The refusal led to significant procedural concerns. Justice Bharti remarked, “This Court does not consider the appearance of the person calling herself Advocate Syed Ainain Qadri as counsel for the petitioners as this Court has no basis/occasion to verify her identity as a person and as a professional.” The court adjourned the matter and directed the Registrar General to examine the BCI Rules to confirm whether appearing with a covered face is permissible for advocates.
The Registrar General submitted a detailed report on December 5, 2024, clarifying that the BCI Rules, under Section 49(1)(gg) of Chapter IV (Part VI), prescribe a strict dress code for advocates. This includes a black full-sleeve jacket or blouse, a white collar with bands, and optional traditional attire such as sarees, skirts, or other culturally appropriate clothing. The rules, however, explicitly do not provide for face coverings, which obstruct the identification of advocates in court.
The report emphasised that an advocate’s identity must be clearly visible to the court to ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings. The inability to verify the advocate’s identity not only breaches professional standards but also raises questions about the transparency and legitimacy of the legal process.
After reviewing the Registrar General’s report, Justice Kazmi delivered a firm judgment on December 13, reiterating that the BCI Rules do not allow advocates to appear in court with Hijab. The judgment stressed that “adherence to the prescribed dress code is fundamental to maintaining professionalism and ensuring the smooth functioning of the legal system. Identity verification is an essential requirement that cannot be waived.”
Advocate Qadri, who had been at the center of the controversy, did not appear in court on the day of the judgment. Her clients were instead represented by a male lawyer. The court, having resolved the procedural issue, proceeded to hear the case on its merits and dismissed it.
The judgment emphasised the importance of adhering to professional standards in the legal profession. Justice Kazmi observed that while personal freedoms and religious practices are protected under the Constitution, these rights must be exercised in a manner that does not conflict with professional obligations or compromise the court’s ability to function effectively.
“The courtroom is a space governed by rules and professional ethics,” the court stated, “and these cannot be overridden by individual preferences or interpretations.”
The ruling has sparked a broader debate about the intersection of personal freedoms and professional responsibilities. Advocates of the judgment argue that it reinforces the principle of transparency and ensures that courtroom practices remain consistent and impartial. Critics, however, contend that the ruling may disproportionately impact individuals from communities where veiling is a cultural or religious norm.
Senior Advocate Sajjad Mir, who was present during the hearings, supported the judgment, stating, “The court’s decision upholds the integrity of the judicial process. Identification of advocates is not a trivial matter—it is fundamental to ensuring that justice is administered fairly and transparently.”
