Question From A Law Student: Should India Have A Standardised Dress Code For Law Interns?

What steps can the legal ecosystem take to establish a standardized, pan-India dress code for law interns that successfully prevents professional misrepresentation without subjecting aspiring lawyers to an arbitrary, fragmented sartorial maze across courts, chambers, ministries, and corporate offices?

For a law student, an internship is the first genuine window into the practical realities of the legal system. It is a time meant for observing proceedings, assisting mentors, and absorbing the intricacies of practice. Yet, instead of focusing on their legal education, many interns find themselves preoccupied with a far more immediate anxiety: deciphering what they are legally and socially permitted to wear. The differential enforcement of uniforms for law interns has created a confusing and fragmented landscape, one that perfectly spotlights the practical challenges law students encounter while pursuing internships and preparing for careers in the profession.

The root of this issue lies in the tension between legitimate professional gatekeeping and a lack of centralized regulatory clarity. Misrepresentation, an intern or unauthorized individual passing themselves off as an enrolled advocate is undeniably a serious offence that compromises the sanctity of the court. Recently, the Gujarat High Court was forced to halt proceedings to school an intern who appeared in court wearing an advocate's band. The intern was acting on the instructions of her senior. The judge summoned the senior to explain the misrepresentation, firmly clarifying that the band represents the dignity of the profession and is strictly reserved for enrolled individuals under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Such strict gatekeeping is necessary for security and decorum. Recent disruptions, such as the severe ruckus created by law students from Lucknow University who threw papers and hurled abuses at the Chief Justice of India inside the Supreme Court, highlight why strict identification and monitoring are paramount. If a recognizable, standardized uniform for students were rigorously enforced nationwide, such bad actors might be identified much earlier, preventing them from blending in with actual practitioners and exploiting the system.

However, the current solution to this gatekeeping is a disjointed, court-by-court approach that punishes well-meaning students. I experienced this regulatory whiplash firsthand. During my internship at the Institute of Legislative Drafting and Research (ILDR) under the Ministry of Law and Justice, my workplace expected me to wear a black coat over a white shirt. Yet, when I crossed over to the Supreme Court to assist with a matter, I learned that a tie was suddenly a strict necessity for entry.

In Delhi Courts, the Hardik Kapoor case finally provided a standardized uniform, a white shirt, black tie, and black trousers. But cross the border into Gurugram, and the situation shifts completely; authorities demand that law students avoid wearing anything similar to an advocate's traditional attire. Because each of these spaces, from courts and private chambers to academic institutions and corporate banks enforces its own distinct workplace rules, the result is an unnecessary financial and mental burden. Law students must juggle multiple wardrobes simply to assist across different forums in a single week.

This is a question that heavily deserves discussion, reflection, and reform. If the next generation of lawyers is to seamlessly transition into practice, they must be granted a defined, dignified dress code that offers them a recognized status. A harmonized standard would prevent misrepresentation, aid security, and eliminate a massive barrier to legal education.

Who Should Answer the Question?

To effectively resolve this issue, responses are invited from stakeholders best placed to enact and guide reform:

Bar associations: Bar associations are stakeholders best placed to respond to this question.

Judges and members of the Judiciary: Judges and members of the judiciary are identified as key respondents.

Senior advocates and arguing counsels: Senior advocates and arguing counsel are well-suited to address this issue.

Law firm partners, In-house counsel, and Academics: Law firm partners, practitioners, in-house counsel, academics, and subject-matter specialists are among the stakeholders who should answer this question.