# (a) For Presiding Officers

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 1514/Admn.(B)
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1941-08-19
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 1514/Admn.(B)
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/a-for-presiding-officers-161977
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

22
(ii) Court dress
(a) For Presiding Officers
G.L No.23/4513 dated 19th August, 1941
The provisions contained in rule 615, Chapter XXVII of the General Rules (Civil),
1957, which provide for the wearing of proper dress in court are mandatory and it is the
23
duty of each presiding officer not only to see that he is properly dressed according to the
rule but also that all legal practitioners appearing before him are so dressed.
C.L. No. 1514/Admn.(B) dated 9th November, 1970
The Chief Judicial Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates shall put on the same dress
in court as is prescribed for the members of the Civil Judicial Service.
(b) For civilian officers appearing as witness
C.L. No. 55/VIIIb-223 dated 15th May, 1972
There should be no objection if a civilian officer appearing in court as witness
wears a dress including a full-sleeved bush-shirt of sober colour and plain design.
C.L. No. 31/VIIIb-223/Admn.(G) dated 20th June, 1989
Invites attention to the provisions of rule 615, General Rules (Civil), 1957 and rule
42, General Rules (Criminal), 1977, and directs that all Presiding Officers should strictly
follow the instructions regarding wearing of court-dress as prescribed.
(iii) Smoking or chewing betel nuts
G.L. No. 11/67-4 dated 23rd April, 1942
Smoking in court and chewing the betel nuts are undignified practices which should
cease not only in Judges‟ courts but also in Magistrates‟ courts.
The Court has, of course, no concern with what an Executive Magistrate does in the
execution of administrative business nor is it concerned with the way in which Collectors
and Deputy Collectors conduct their revenue cases but when District Magistrates, Joint
Magistrates and Deputy Magistrates are sitting as Presiding Officers of Criminal Courts,
the High Court has the strongest objection both to their smoking and to their chewing
betel nuts. These directions apply with equal force to legal practitioners appearing in
court, and the Court expects Judges and Magistrates to see that they are carried out.
C.L. No. 13 Dated 23rd March, 2002
As you are aware that the smoking cigarette is harmful habit and in course of time
can lead to grave chronic health hazards. Researches carried out in various parts of the
world have confirmed that there is a relationship between the smoking of cigarettes and
lung cancer, chronic bronchitis; certain diseases of the heart and arteries; cancer of
bladder, prostrate, mouth, pharynx and esophagus; peptic ulcer etc., are reported to be
among the ill-effects of cigarette smoking. Even in the Objects and Reasons of the
Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of
Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Bill, 2001 thrust has also
been given that tobacco is universally regarded as one of the major public health hazards
and is responsible directly or indirectly for an estimated eight lakh deaths annually in the
country. Considering all these aspects, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Murli S.
Deora vs. Union of India and others [(2001) 8 SCC, 765] waspleased to assess the perils
and evils of smoking and gave the following directions: