There are practical difficulties associated with laying down a dress code. The concepts of “decency” and “modesty” are subjective, and vary from judge to judge. What may appear “tasteful” to one judge may prompt another to ask the litigant if he is going to a cinema hall.
On similar lines, the words of Justice Potter Stewart of the US Supreme Court in the decision of Jacobellis v. Ohio encapsulate the predicament at hand. When asked to determine whether a film passed the obscenity test, he said,
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
Another aspect to consider is the vast socio-economic and cultural diversity of litigants in a country like India. Can one expect a person from a rural background to be dressed in a bespoke suit on his day in court?
Source: Barandbench
