Thursday’s swearing-in ceremony at Raj Bhavan had all the elements of a formal state occasion. R.N. Ravi took oath as West Bengal’s 22nd Governor in a dignified setting. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee stood present as the ceremony unfolded formally. However, one visual detail immediately hijacked the internet’s attention completely. Justice Sujoy Paul, Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, administered the oath. Furthermore, he appeared dressed in a striking bright red robe. Additionally, he wore a full colonial-era court wig on his head. Consequently, cameras captured the image and social media erupted within minutes. Therefore, what began as a routine constitutional ceremony became a nationwide conversation overnight.
This Was Not Justice Paul’s First Time
Many viewers assumed this was an unusual or spontaneous choice by Justice Paul. However, the reality tells a far more deliberate and traditional story. Justice Paul wore identical attire in January 2026 during his own oath-taking ceremony. Furthermore, West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose administered that earlier oath to him. Additionally, Justice Paul simply followed the tradition that previous Calcutta High Court judges maintained. Therefore, this was not a personal fashion statement or an individual choice at all. Moreover, it represented a direct continuation of ceremonial practices stretching back over a century. Consequently, the wig on Justice Paul’s head carried the weight of colonial institutional memory.
Where Did the Wig Actually Come From?
To understand this tradition, one must travel back to 17th-century Europe. French Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV first popularised elaborate powdered wigs as high fashion. Furthermore, Britain adopted this trend enthusiastically during the 1660s under King Charles II. Additionally, by 1685, wigs became mandatory attire for all judges and barristers in British courts. Moreover, the wig served a specific symbolic purpose beyond mere fashion or decoration. It aimed to strip judges of individual identity and project uniform authority instead. Consequently, the wig became a powerful symbol of judicial objectivity and institutional impartiality. Therefore, what began as European aristocratic fashion transformed into a cornerstone of British legal identity.
View this post on Instagram
Colonial India Inherited Britain’s Courtroom Completely
When Britain established courts across India, it imported its entire legal framework. Judges and lawyers dressed identically to their British counterparts in every ceremonial detail. Furthermore, robes, bands, and wigs all crossed the ocean and took root in Indian courts. Additionally, the Calcutta High Court carries this colonial inheritance more visibly than any other institution. Queen Victoria’s Letters Patent formally established it in 1862 during full British rule. Moreover, Calcutta became the first functional High Court in India on July 1, 1862. Consequently, its ceremonial traditions predate Indian independence by nearly a century. Therefore, the colonial DNA of this institution runs deeper than most Indians realise today.
India achieved independence in 1947 and built entirely new democratic institutions proudly. Nevertheless, several colonial-era judicial practices survived the transition without serious challenge. Bar Council rules still require lawyers to wear black coats or sherwanis with white neck-bands. Furthermore, this dress code traces its origins directly to British courtroom attire from centuries ago. Additionally, High Court judges wear long black gowns with wing collars during regular proceedings. Moreover, this design mirrors almost exactly what British judges historically wore on the bench. Consequently, India’s legal dress code remained frozen in colonial time while the nation moved forward. Therefore, the courtroom became one of the last spaces where colonial visual identity survived intact.
Even Britain Has Moved On — Partially
Interestingly, Britain itself has gradually reformed its own judicial dress traditions over decades. Nevertheless, British High Court judges still wear furred scarlet robes and ceremonial wigs for state occasions. Furthermore, India’s legal system evolved from the exact same British framework and structure. Additionally, similar ceremonial elements therefore naturally survived in courts established during the colonial era. However, the critical difference lies in context and national identity today. Moreover, Britain wears these traditions as its own cultural and institutional heritage naturally. Consequently, India wearing the same traditions raises a fundamentally different and more complex question. Therefore, what represents continuity for Britain represents inherited identity for a post-colonial democracy like India.
This debate is neither new nor limited to social media commentary alone. Former Supreme Court Justice VR Krishna Iyer raised this concern powerfully decades ago. He observed that Indian courts borrowed even their costume directly from the British entirely. Furthermore, he pointed out this reality persisted even six decades after independence ended colonial rule. Additionally, various legal scholars have periodically called for a distinctly Indian judicial dress code. Moreover, critics argue that colonial symbols in courtrooms subtly reinforce hierarchies rooted in British authority. Consequently, these symbols carry psychological weight beyond their purely ceremonial or decorative function. Therefore, the argument for reform carries substance well beyond aesthetic preference or nationalist sentiment.
Tradition or Institutional Inertia?
Defenders of judicial tradition make a reasonable and legitimate counter-argument worth considering. They argue that ceremonial attire projects dignity, authority, and continuity in the administration of justice. Furthermore, they suggest that changing dress codes risks disrupting established institutional culture unnecessarily. Additionally, tradition creates a sense of gravity and solemnity that ordinary clothing cannot replicate. Moreover, some legal experts argue that the wig’s origin matters less than its current symbolic function. Consequently, stripping away ceremonial attire might inadvertently diminish the perceived authority of courts. Therefore, the debate ultimately forces a deeper question about what institutions choose to inherit and carry forward.
India Deserves Its Own Judicial Identity
Nevertheless, this editorial firmly believes that India deserves a judicial identity rooted in its own civilisational heritage. A nation with thousands of years of legal philosophy, governance traditions, and cultural depth needs no borrowed symbols. Furthermore, Indian courts can project authority, dignity, and gravitas through distinctly Indian ceremonial expressions. Additionally, designing a new judicial dress code would not weaken courts — it would strengthen their Indian identity powerfully. Moreover, such a reform would signal that India’s institutions finally feel confident enough to define themselves independently. Consequently, the image of Justice Sujoy Paul in a colonial wig should not merely entertain internet users briefly. Therefore, it must serve as a genuine catalyst for a long overdue institutional conversation about identity, legacy, and self-determination. Ultimately, a truly independent India deserves courts that look as Indian as the Constitution they proudly uphold every single day.
