Latest news with #RCBA
The Print
a day ago
- The Print
As bar associations go after courtroom imposters in black & white, concerns about ‘overreach'
'No clerk, litigant, or member of the general public is permitted to wear a white shirt and black pants,' the notice stated, declaring the attire 'strictly reserved' for advocates as a symbol of professional identity. In an effort to clamp down on the worrying trend of touts and fake lawyers misleading and defrauding litigants, the Rohini Court Bar Association (RCBA) issued a notice 15 July, prohibiting non-lawyers from wearing white shirts and black trousers within the court premises. New Delhi: From Shahdara to Gurugram, court bar associations are imposing attire restrictions after a surge in non-lawyers posing as advocates — triggering fresh debate on freedom, formality, and access to justice. 'A number of touts are falsely representing themselves as official advocates or clerks… These individuals are misleading and defrauding uneducated litigants under false pretence,' the RCBA said. A month earlier, the Gurgaon Bar Association passed a similar resolution, emphasising that only enrolled advocates or duly authorised law interns are permitted to wear the professional dress code — white shirt and black trousers, salwar suit, or sari—as per Bar Council of India (BCI) norms. According to the resolution dated 5 June, violators now face a Rs 5,000 penalty, and the rule is strictly enforced inside the district court complex. In November 2022, the Shahdara Bar Association of Delhi introduced a new dress code for interns—white shirt and blue coat and trousers. This was done keeping in mind the confusion and mix up between advocates and interns as a large number of interns visit the court. But this order was set aside by the Delhi High Court which said a standard uniform should be mandated across the board as varying dress codes set by different bar associations would create confusion and difficulties for interns. Thus, the uniform prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi would be followed uniformly across Delhi. In November 2018, a Delhi High Court judge set aside a similar notice issued by the Rohini Bar Association directing interns not to wear black coats. Even though there have been debates about change in the formal attire due to the excessive summer heat—discussions about litigant's clothing have been uncommon. Also Read: Gurugram Bar cracks down on courtroom impersonators with a 'black & white' ban The colonial legacy The black-and-white dress code—black coat, white shirt, neckband—was inherited by the Indian legal system from the British colonial tradition. The tradition of wearing uniforms in courts is centuries-old. In England, judges began wearing wigs around 1650, although robes had already been in use even earlier. After Independence, India did away with the wig but retained black coats and robes as part of courtroom attire. Under the Advocates Act of 1961, it is compulsory for lawyers in India to wear a black coat or robe along with a white neckband. Wearing a gown is optional, except when appearing before the Supreme Court or high courts. Over the years, this uniform has become the visual shorthand for a lawyer in India — both inside courtrooms and in popular culture. But that symbolic power is now being undermined. The crisp black coat and white shirt are more than just fashion. In India, they're a badge of authority. In Bollywood or TV, anyone in black-and-white is instantly assumed to be a powerful lawyer character—think Jolly LLB or Damini. According to the Bar Council of India 'an advocate shall appear in court only in the dress prescribed and his appearance should always be presentable'. The Advocates Act, 1961, along with the Bar Council of India Rules, outlines the dress code for advocates in India. For male advocates , a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (knee-length jacket), black sherwani, and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, a black open-breast coat, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Long trouser —white, black, striped, or grey—or a dhoti. For female advocates, a black full- or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, sarees or long skirts in white, black, or any mellow or subdued colour without any print or design or flares in white, black, black-striped, or grey. But the rules, while clear for advocates, are silent on what litigants or the general public can or cannot wear. Who owns the black & white? Traditionally, litigants were expected to dress 'formally' in courts, out of respect for the proceedings. But now, some worry these colour restrictions could affect people simply trying to dress appropriately. The recent curbs raise questions about dress codes being enforced beyond legal professionals. 'While the RCBA's intention to prevent impersonation is understandable, enforcing a prohibition on basic attire—white shirts and black trousers — across all court visitors strays into arbitrary overreach,' Delhi-based advocate Urja Pandey told ThePrint. Furthermore, these are common everyday wear in India, worn by students, clerks, office workers, and even children, she explained. 'Banning them impinges on ordinary citizens' freedom of expression and right to access justice, especially when they may lack the means for elaborate wardrobe changes.' 'The Bar Council of India's authority under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act empowers it to regulate advocates' dress, not the public's; extending such rules to litigants or clerks risks legal invalidation,' she added. Supreme Court advocate Shariq Ahmed Abbasi, however, said the Rohini Bar Association notice must be welcomed by the public at large. This move, he said, is only to 'save litigants from the menace of touts. It was repeatedly brought to the knowledge of the Bar body that several miscreants had falsely represented themselves as lawyers and defrauded the litigants.' 'The step should be seen in the right earnest with the objective of preserving the interests of litigants and as a mark of professional identity and dignity of the legal fraternity,' he told ThePrint. About alternatives, advocate Pandey explained how the issue of impersonation can be better addressed through 'targeted measures such as mandatory identity cards, better gate security, biometric checks, or visible signage — not blanket attire bans'. Ved Prakash Sharma, co-chairman of the Bar Council of India since 2019 and a former chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, also criticised this move. He said a bar association is an association of advocates working at a particular court complex, and they have no right or authority to prescribe a dress code for members of the society. 'They (bar associations) have no legal or moral authority to do that, and (they) are exceeding their jurisdiction and authority by prescribing a dress code or penalising people wearing advocate attire,' he added. 'Even for advocates, the only statutory body—Bar Council of India—will prescribe a dress code.' He acknowledged the concerns about touts, security and safety as legitimate, but said 'these things are to be taken up with the law enforcement authorities, the police concerned or the district judge or the High Court.' 'And it is their business how to control and regulate the entry of unwarranted people in the court complex.' (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: Bangs, lipstick, low neckline—for Indian woman lawyers, merit evaluation steeped in misogyny
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
We Had a Workable Plan to Recover the Northwest's Salmon Runs. The Trump Administration Just Shut It Down
The Trump Administration said Thursday that it will terminate the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. The historic agreement, reached under the Biden Administration in 2023, brought together state governments, tribes, and other stakeholders to plot a path forward for the region's endangered salmon runs. As part of those efforts, the agreement opened the door to considerations around breaching the Lower Four Snake River Dams, a controversial move that many experts say is our best chance at recovering these fish. 'The survival problems of various ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species in the Columbia Basin cannot be solved without removing four dams on the Lower Snake River,' a group of 68 leading fisheries scientists wrote in a letter to policymakers in 2021, as the RCBA was first coming together. That same year, Sen. Mike Simpson of Idaho became one of the first conservative leaders in the U.S. to embrace the idea of dam breaching as a viable solution. 'These four dams must be removed to not only avoid extinction,' the scientists concluded, 'but also to restore abundant salmon runs.' Read Next: Breach or Die: It's Time to Free the Lower Snake River and Save Idaho's Wild Salmon In its June 12 memorandum, however, the Trump Administration chalked up those conclusions to 'speculative climate change concerns.' It explained that by pulling the federal government and its funding out of the RCBA, it was 'stopping radical environmentalism' and 'securing American prosperity.' In addition to fundamentally mischaracterizing the agreement itself, Thursday's announcement seemed to imply that speaking up for fish and considering alternatives to the status quo is part of a green agenda meant to harm the American public. 'President Trump continues to deliver on his promise to end the previous administration's misplaced priorities and protect the livelihoods of the American people,' the announcement reads. Conservationists and wild fish advocates are deeply disappointed by Trump's decision to axe the agreement, which also paused a series of ongoing lawsuits that have dragged on for decades, and would have contributed more than a billion dollars in federal funding to solving a big, hairy problem. They say the move sets back our country's salmon recovery efforts substantially, returning us to a zero-sum game of endless litigation that pits energy against fish. 'It was one of the first times that we had a collaborative effort where people agreed to come together — nobody's hand was forced, there wasn't a judge or a court insisting on this,' CEO and President of Trout Unlimited Chris Wood tells Outdoor Life. 'Now, we're back to the beginning — where we had been for the previous 20 years. Which is just relying on the Endangered Species Act to keep these most amazing of God's creatures from blinking out.' This is not speculation. The Columbia-Snake River system was once the most productive salmon and steelhead fishery in the world. Today, these anadromous runs are a shadow of their former selves, with wild fish returning at less than two percent of their historical abundance. As Wood notes, 'the numbers don't lie.' And although there are several factors influencing their survival in the 21st century, the most impactful barriers are the four dams on the Lower Snake River and the impoundments they've created, which impede salmon and steelhead from reaching the most productive spawning habitat in the Lower 48. 'The Snake is the last best hope for Pacific salmon,' Wood says, because of the high-quality habitat found in its high-elevation tributaries. 'These places are perfect for these fish. The problem is, they just can't get back.' The main objective of the 2023 cooperative agreement, Wood adds, was for stakeholders to work together to increase those returns. It was not a decision to breach the Lower Four Snake River Dams, nor did it support legislation to authorize dam breaching. The dams are owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and removing or redesigning them would require an act of Congress. Breaching the dams remains a deeply controversial subject, as they provide several benefits to our modern, energy-hungry society, including hydropower, barge transportation, and irrigation. The four dams together produce roughly enough electricity to power a city the size of Seattle. (Importantly, they do not provide flood control, as other dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers do.) A core component of the RCBA was to find ways to replace this energy and the other benefits before any breaching plans were even considered. 'The idea was to look at the dams and the benefits they provide,' Wood says. 'And let's ask each other: How can we make sure that the irrigators, the barge operators, the farmers, and the people who depend on the power [the dams generate] can all be made whole?' In many ways, the agreement reached in 2023 provided a road map for these difficult conversations. It established a Tribal Energy Program to help the Columbia River Treaty Tribes develop their own renewable energy sources. It provided federal guidance for replacing and/or redesigning the current irrigation and transportation systems in the Lower Snake region. And it provided the funds to make these solutions workable. Perhaps most importantly, though, it paused the Gordian knot of ongoing lawsuits around the Lower Four dams in an effort to bring stakeholders back to the negotiating table. 'So, I guess we're gonna go back to the way things used to be, which is basically, 'We'll see you in court.' And I don't see how that benefits the fish. And I definitely don't see how it benefits the social and economic interests that depend on this hydropower system.'
