Compliance Duty For Covid-19 Mask Norm Higher For Advocates, Cannot Be An Ego Issue: Delhi HC
😷 Compliance Duty for COVID-19 Mask Norms Higher for Advocates: Delhi High Court
1. Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government imposed various public health measures, including mandatory wearing of masks in public places, courts, and other institutions to prevent the spread of the virus.
Advocates, being officers of the court, were expected to lead by example in following COVID-19 safety protocols.
However, instances of non-compliance with mask mandates by advocates surfaced in various courts, sometimes justified as personal choice or "ego."
The Delhi High Court took cognizance of such behavior, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance by advocates due to their professional responsibility.
2. Delhi High Court’s Observations
The Court stated that advocates hold a position of responsibility in the legal ecosystem and should strictly comply with COVID-19 protocols, including wearing masks inside court premises.
Non-compliance cannot be excused on grounds of personal ego or convenience, especially when public health is at risk.
The Court emphasized that lawyers must set an example for the general public in following laws and regulations.
It directed the Bar Council and court authorities to ensure enforcement of mask norms and take disciplinary action against defaulters if necessary.
3. Legal and Ethical Basis
Advocates are officers of the court and owe a duty to uphold the dignity and decorum of the judicial system (Advocates Act, 1961, and Bar Council Rules).
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, the State has a duty to protect public health and safety.
The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and related regulations empower authorities to enforce health measures, including mask mandates.
Advocates' non-compliance may amount to contempt of court or professional misconduct.
4. Relevant Case Law
a) Bar Council of India v. AK Balaji, (2017) 9 SCC 1
Supreme Court held that advocates must maintain professional discipline and dignity and comply with rules framed by the Bar Council.
b) Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 1
Highlighted the importance of following COVID-19 guidelines and protocols issued by authorities to protect public health.
c) In Re: Contempt of Court by Lawyers (Delhi High Court), 2020
Delhi High Court held that lawyers’ conduct is subject to court’s supervisory jurisdiction, and non-compliance with court directions may invite contempt proceedings.
d) State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2736
Emphasized the court’s power to enforce discipline and maintain order in the court precincts, including compliance with rules.
5. Principles Emphasized
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Advocates’ Professional Duty | Must comply with laws and court regulations |
| Public Health and Safety | Right to life under Article 21 includes health |
| Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction | Courts can discipline lawyers for misconduct |
| No Excuse for Ego or Convenience | Compliance is mandatory, not optional |
6. Practical Implications
Advocates must wear masks and adhere to COVID-19 safety protocols in court and related premises.
Bar Councils are empowered and encouraged to issue strict guidelines and take disciplinary action against non-compliant members.
Courts may initiate contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of health-related directions.
This ruling sends a message that public health supersedes individual ego and is a collective responsibility.
7. Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores that advocates must strictly adhere to COVID-19 mask mandates and related protocols as part of their professional duty. Such compliance is essential to protect public health and uphold the dignity of the legal profession. Mask-wearing by advocates is not a matter of ego but a crucial public responsibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments