The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking a ban on the use of non-biodegradable materials in the neckbands worn by advocates, remarking that such issues fall significantly outside the remit of a constitutional court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran declined to entertain the plea, emphasizing that the judiciary cannot extend its jurisdiction to monitor the personal accessories of lawyers or minute waste management issues.
The Plea: A Diwali Discovery
The petition was filed by Sakshi Vijay, who identified herself as the wife of a practising lawyer. The petitioner stated that the genesis of her plea lay in a domestic discovery made during her Diwali cleaning. Vijay claimed she had stumbled upon a stash of discarded lawyer bands in her home, all of which were allegedly manufactured from non-biodegradable materials.
Concerned by the environmental implications of such waste, Vijay approached the Apex Court seeking a writ of mandamus. She had made the Union Ministry of Law and Justice and the Bar Council of India parties to the petition, praying for directions to establish a nationwide mechanism for the eco-friendly collection, segregation, and recycling of used advocate bands.
Court’s Observations: “How Far Can We Go?”
The bench, however, remained unconvinced by the urgency or the justiciability of the issue. In a sharp oral observation, the Court questioned the limits of judicial overreach regarding personal usage and waste.
Chief Justice Gavai remarked that if the Supreme Court were to start entertaining requests to regulate specific items of clothing, it sets a precident for micromanagement that is not the function of the judiciary.
“Tomorrow, can we also start monitoring how a handkerchief is going to be used and reused? How far can a constitutional court go in monitoring all this?” the bench asked.
Expanding on the analogy, the Court noted that issues ranging from the disposal of personal items to village and urban waste collection systems are administrative matters and do not fall within the direct domain of the Supreme Court for day-to-day monitoring.
The Decision
Finding no constitutional ground to intervene in what it effectively deemed a matter of personal wardrobe and municipal management rather than a violation of fundamental rights, the bench dismissed the plea.
The Court concluded that “wardrobe policing” or managing the lifecycle of specific cloth accessories was not a fit subject for a constitutional court’s attention, thereby refusing to issue directions to the Bar Council or the government on the matter.
