Delhi HC rejects PIL against different dress codes for judicial and technical members of GST Appellate Tribunal

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest petition (PIL) petition filed by a lawyer flagging difference in dress codes for judicial and technical members in the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) [Garima Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Anr.].The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia stated that such matters cannot be decided by courts.“How is this a PIL? These issues are not justiciable," the Court said. .The petitioners took objection to an office order from June 2025 passed by the President of GSTAT. He stated that the said order prescribes two different dress codes, one for the president and judicial members of the tribunal and another for the technical members. He submitted that as per the office order, the president and judicial members of the tribunal are required to wear the same dresses prescribed for Supreme Court or High Court, without gown. However, technical members are required to wear white, striped or black trousers, black coat, white shirt and neckties..The Court said that the petitioner may move a representation before the president of the tribunal. “Judicial members of the tribunal are generally Supreme Court or High Court judges. A non-judicial cannot be permitted to wear robes or band. That could be the reason. You want non-judicial persons to also adorn robes? Represent your case to the President of tribunal," the High Court remarked..The counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the difference in dress code was an eye-sore.“President and members have a dress code separate to the technical members which is creating a disparity in dress code. The judicial member will sit like a judge while the technical member shall have the dress of a court master. Discussions are rife if they have any power. It is creating an eye-sore. In no tribunal of the country there are different dresses. It is discrimination,” it was argued..The Court recorded the petitioner's submission and granted him liberty to approach the president of the tribunal.“In our opinion can better be decided by the President. Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to approach the President for ventilation of her grievance. If representation made, we request the Hon’ble President on GSTAT to consider the same and take appropriate decision, if possible, with expedition,” the Court directed.