# rule but also that all legal practitioners appearing before him are so dressed

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 1514/Admn.(B)
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1970-11-09
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 1514/Admn.(B)
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rule-but-also-that-all-legal-practitioners-appearing-before-him-are-so-dressed-161982
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

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:
24
"Realising the gravity of the situation and considering the adverse effect
of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, it is directed that smoking be
prohibited in public places which also includes court premises".
I am, therefore, directed to request you that the aforesaid directions be brought to
the notice of all the Judicial Officers, members of the Bar and also to all other personnel
attached thereto for necessary compliance within the premises of the courts.
(iii-a) Use of Mobile either by Lawyers or by any Presiding Judges or by any of the
Clients is prohibited in the Subordinate Court.
C.L. No. 20/2010/Admin. „G-II‟ Section: Dated 24.07.2010

I am directed to say that the Hon‟ble Court, has banned the use of mobile phones
in subordinate court either by the Presiding Officers or by Lawyers or by Clients. This
direction be displayed before all courts, prominent places and the office bearers of the
Local Bar be also intimated to enforce the directions that all alike, be it lawyers or clients
should enter the Court after switching off their respective sets (mobile), failing which the
same shall be liable to be seized besides being liable to pay a certain amount as fine for
disturbing the serenity of the court.

I am further directed to add that the District Judges shall impress upon all the
presiding officers that they shall leave their mobile sets in the chambers in silent mode. If
any of the presiding officers is found using mobile phone or talking on mobile phone
while holding courts, it would entail disciplinary action against them. The District Judge,
either himself or by appointing any one on his behalf, should conduct random checking to
ensure that the directions so issued by the Court are being observed in compliance by all
and sundry.

I am, therefore, to request you kindly to bring the contents of this Circular Letter
to the notice of all concerned and also strict compliance of these directions be ensured.
(iv) Judicial Integrity
G.L. No. 37/67-8 dated 22nd October, 1932
A few instances have come to the notice of the Court in which a subordinate court
hearing an appeal, secure in the belief that its findings of facts cannot be scrutinized by
the High Court in second appeal, exhibited a lack of Judicial integrity and arrived at a
finding which was quite inconsistent with the evidence before it. Judicial integrity has
always been high among the judges of the courts subordinate to the High Court and the
reputation of the courts in general should not suffer owing to the conduct of a few. To
deal with cases where want of judicial integrity is suspected, it has been decided that, for
administrative purposes, the Court may in certain cases carefully examine the evidence
on the record and satisfy itself whether the suspicion is well founded. Those Officers who
depart from the rule of Judicial honesty for the sake of avoiding a slight trouble or to
satisfy a whim of their own cannot be trusted to hold the very responsible position of the
presiding officer of a court. The Court expects that subordinate courts will cooperate with
it in upholding the high standard of justice that has always prevailed in the State.