TV
The other day, a close friend surprised me by saying how casually a senior and important government official in the field had dressed and bedecked himself while in his office, where he usually interacts with a large number of rural people. He was wearing a round-neck T-shirt and a heavy bracelet of gold. My friend had visited his office recently and felt greatly uncomfortable seeing him in so a casual state.
This raised in me the issue of whether the government should prescribe a dress code for its officials. A consistent dress code could help project a unified, polished image to clients and stakeholders. Such an arrangement could also reduce visible socioeconomic differences, fostering a sense of equality. In industries like manufacturing or healthcare, dress codes would ensure safety and hygiene. Some argue that dressing professionally can psychologically reinforce a work mindset.
But there could as well be opposition to such uniformity. Some feel that in such a situation, employees may feel stifled or disconnected if they cannot dress in ways that reflect their identity. Some say that creative or technical roles often thrive in relaxed environments where casual attire is the norm. Another view is that in diverse workplaces, rigid dress codes may unintentionally clash with cultural or religious norms.
Ultimately, the desirability depends on the nature of the work. In companies, what matters are the company culture and employee expectations. Many modern companies have opted for business casual or flexible dress codes to strike a balance. Several Indian companies have formal or semi-formal dress code policies. Many of them often tailor their dress code policies based on department, client interaction, and cultural considerations.
The desirability of a dress code for government employees in India is a topic that blends practicality, symbolism, and public perception.
A Dress Code for government employees might be desirable to improve professional image and public trust. Since government employees often interact with the public, formal attire can reinforce authority, discipline, and credibility. It helps distinguish officials from civilians, especially in administrative or enforcement roles. Formal attire may psychologically reinforce a sense of duty and seriousness in the workplace.
It might be undesirable on the grounds that it limits personal expression. The other reason is that the dress code is not always role-relevant, as desk jobs or technical roles may not require formal attire, and therefore makes rigid dress codes seem unnecessary.
The Dress Code may give rise to enforcement challenges as well. Compliance can be hard to monitor and may lead to unnecessary disciplinary actions or resentment.
A dress code can perhaps be desirable when tailored to the nature of the role, cultural context, and public interaction. Flexibility is key—allowing traditional attire, climate-sensitive options, and role-based exceptions can make dress codes both respectful and effective. The objective is to promote a professional, respectful, and culturally appropriate work environment that reflects the dignity of public service.
Acceptable attire should include formal shirts, trousers, kurta-pyjama (neatly pressed) for men; sarees, salwar kameez for ladies. Clean, professional shoes or sandals (no flip-flops or slippers) should be fine. Unacceptable attire would include T-shirts with slogans or graphics, jeans, cargo pants, shorts, sportswear, caps, or hoodies, or excessively bright or flashy clothing.
Having discussed the pros and cons, I am of the view that without prescribing a dress code, an appropriate advisory to officials should perhaps be in order. The objective is to show officials in an appropriate light and in clothing that gels with their public image and responsibility. The dress and embellishments on the body should evoke public confidence and respect.
(DISCLAIMER: This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are the author’s own and have nothing to do with OTV’s charter or views. OTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.)
