From British Wigs to Robes to ‘My Lords’: Rethinking Colonial Traditions in India’s Judiciary

On 16th January, 2026, Justice Sujoy Paul took oath as the newly appointed Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court which drew public attention when a video surfaced showcasing Justice Paul as wearing the traditional British White  judicial wig and red gown. The  attire is historically associated with England’s colonial legal system and its justices. While such ceremonial dress remains legally permissible and continues to be followed in certain courts, the incident revived a long-standing debate surrounding India’s judicial identity nearly eight decades after independence. The visual symbolism of colonial-era traditions in constitutional courts raises an important question: whether the Indian judiciary should continue to mirror British customs or evolve towards an identity rooted in constitutional values and indigenous ethos.

This incident was not merely about the attire, but about the continued adherence to colonial-era practices within Indian courtrooms. The persistence of such symbols reflects a deeper institutional reluctance to move beyond forced imperial traditions. At a time when the nation aspires to build a Viksit and Naya Bharat based on constitutional values, equality and indigenous identity, the continued use of colonial customs risks slowing the growth of truly Indian institutions. From wigs and gowns to courtroom language and forms of address, these remnants of imperial rule still influence judicial culture in ways that no longer align with the spirit of a sovereign, democratic republic. 

Similarly, the colonial legacy of referring to high court and supreme court judges as “My lordship or ladyship” or “My lords” is still very common practice in the high courts and Supreme Court of India. Since long there has been a debate on referring to judges as lords where some say that the old (British/French) practice is a sign of respect to a person who grants justice while others view this as a “Colonial Hangover” and want this practice to be abolished. There is also the argument that referring to judges as lords elevates their status to one which is above the common person. 

History and origin of the archaic terms – 

Contrary to popular belief, the terms “My lords or  My ladyship” are not British terms but French terms. In 1337, England and France were in the middle of “The Hundred Year’s war” and it was a common term in France to refer men of nobility as ‘Millourt.’ This term  travelled through the Englishmen back to England and began to spread in Britain. Eventually the noble and elite class of Britain were referred to as My lords which also led to the birth of My lady. 

Then in the 1700s, the operations of East India Company was increasing day by day and there was a lack of a competent court in India who could hear matters and disputes for the company. So with the British charter of 1726, the East India Company established a mayor’s court (civil) and criminal court. The Apex court for India still remained the Privy Council in London. King George 1 then used to send British officers and aldermen who were judicial officers in England to be judges in India and they brought the practice of using Lords or Lady in courts. Not only these terms, but the British men also brought the practice of wearing gowns, bands and wigs. 

In India’s Context – 

In India’s complex social and religious fabric, the term is widely associated with religious deities or godly figures like Lord Rama (Hindu) or Jesus (Christian). India’s usage of the term “Lord” is not one that refers to a person of high class or nobility but one who has divine powers. Though the practice of using this term for judges is just namesake but still can hurt sentiments of certain communities.

Bar Council’s 2006 resolution – 

In 2006, the Bar Council of India, the body which governs the field of law passed a resolution which contained the following – 

This resolution discouraged the use of lordship and ladyship and called for the use of ‘Sir’ in lower courts and ‘your honour’ in superior courts. This model is inspired by the American system of addressing the court. 

The views of Indian Courts – 

In 2019, lawyers and Bar Associations in Rajasthan’s high court called for abolishing the practice of using these terms to address judges. Pursuant to which the full court of Rajasthan’s High Court decided that to safeguard the values of equality enshrined in the constitution the terms “lordship” or “ladyship” should not be used. Over time there have been several instances where judges of various High Courts and the apex court have negated the use of these terms. Judges including Justice Bhat (SC), Justice Muralidhar (CJ, Orissa), Justice DY Chandrachud (Former CJI). 

However, in 2020, the then CJI Justice Bobde was addressed as “sir” in a matter and he negated the use of word ‘sir’ since it is not the way to address judges in the Supreme Court of India. He further added that ‘Sir’ is used in American courts, not India. In 2014, the apex court had also rejected a PIL that was seeking a ban on the use of terms like “lordship” or “ladyship”. The court had said that the PIL was not relevant since the there is no compulsion being imposed on lawyers to use these terms. 

The journey from “lordship” to “sir” is not merely a regulatory reform but a necessary mental and institutional shift. While India attained political independence in 1947, several English practices continue to persist within our judicial system, often unquestioned and deeply embedded in tradition. The recent oath-taking ceremony of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, marked by the use of colonial-era attire, serves as a reminder that such continuities are not limited to language alone. These symbols, whether in form of address or ceremonial customs, reflect a broader hesitation to fully detach from imperial legacy. Moving away from these practices does not diminish the dignity of the judiciary; rather, it reinforces the constitutional ideals of equality, respect and republicanism, and marks an essential step towards shaping institutions that truly reflect the spirit of an independent and modern India.