On Tuesday, the Pune District Court withdrew a notice issued by it to the women advocates asking them not to arrange their hair in an open court. This is after the notice received a severe backlash from the netizens including Senior Advocate Indira Jaising.
The notice was issued by the Pune District Court on October 20 in which it asked the women advocates to refrain from fixing their hair in the open courtroom. The notice said that this act of women was disturbing the functioning of the court. “It is repeatedly noticed that women advocates are arranging their hair in open Court, which is disturbing the functioning of the Court. Hence, women advocates are hereby notified to refrain from the such act”, the notice read.
Wow now look ! Who is distracted by women advocates and why ! pic.twitter.com/XTT4iIcCbx
— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) October 23, 2022
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising criticized the Court for issuing such an order and said, “Wow now look! Who is distracted by women advocates and why”. Also, journalist Nimisha Jaiswal criticized the court for the notice. “The power to impede justice lies in your hands (or hair?), ladies”, she tweeted.
The power to impede justice lies in your hands (or hair?), ladies. https://t.co/9ig20gN22t
— Nimisha Jaiswal (@NimishJaiswal) October 24, 2022
While many other users slammed the notice and called it a misogynistic notice which demeaned women, reports mention that the notice was issued to maintain courtroom decorum and did not intend to hurt the sentiments of anybody. “Notice was issued only to maintain the decorum of the courtroom. It has been withdrawn to avoid any controversy”, one of the officials at the Registrar’s office was quoted.
Earlier, in one similar incident which happened in February this year, Justice Rekha Palli was addressed as ‘sir’ several times while she was in the Delhi High Court hearing a case. However, Justice Palli was eager to shut the lawyer who was referring to her in this manner. According to reports, Justice Palli answered, “I am not Sir. I hope you can make that out”.
The lawyer then apologized, but his explanation did not go down well with netizens. He explained that he made the mistake because of the ‘Chair’ she was sitting in. Justice Palli then reacted angrily, claiming that the answer made matter worse since the lawyer believed the Chair is only for ‘Sirs’. She questioned him about what hope could be held for future generations if younger members were unwilling to cease the differentiation.
