The High Court of Tripura held that bar associations cannot discipline advocates for appearing before courts despite boycott calls, with Justice T Amarnath Goud granting interim relief to a suspended lawyer and observing that no bar rules mandate court boycotts by advocates.
The High Court of Tripura recently held that bar associations cannot take disciplinary action against advocates merely for appearing before courts despite a boycott call issued by the association.
Justice T Amarnath Goud made the observation while granting interim relief to a junior advocate who had faced suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Tripura Bar Association for continuing to discharge his professional duties.
In the order passed on May 11, the Court noted that the advocate had been suspended after appearing before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in spite of a boycott resolution passed by the Bar Association.
The Court emphasised that no resolution, regulation, or by-law framed by a Bar Association could override the statutory obligations imposed on advocates under the Advocates Act to represent clients and assist courts in the administration of justice.
The Court held,
“The action of the Office bearers of the Bar Association is totally contrary to law and such action of the Office bearers of the Bar Association cannot be appreciated and thus, it needs to be corrected. No Bar Council or Bar Association’s Rules and Regulations or its bye laws demands for boycotting of Courts,”
Accordingly, the High Court stayed the operation of the Bar Association’s resolution dated January 19 and all consequential proceedings arising from it, including the show cause notice and suspension imposed on the junior advocate.
The Court also permitted the advocate to appear before all courts and forums without being bound by the boycott resolution, effectively rendering the resolution inoperative for the time being.
While dealing with the issue, the Court reaffirmed the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court of India that lawyers do not have the right to go on strike or boycott court proceedings.
The Court noted,
“This Court having concerned to the majesty of the legal profession and concerned towards its fraternity and in light of the similar decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott courts and such actions are wholly unjustified and impermissible in law,”
Factual Backgrounds:
The applicant stated that he is a junior advocate practicing before the District Bar Association of Tripura. The Bar Association office bearers allegedly passed a resolution on January 19, 2026, calling for a boycott of court proceedings, particularly before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Despite the resolution, the applicant chose to appear before the Commission on February 6, 2026, considering his professional responsibility toward his client.
According to the applicant, the office bearers of the Bar Association reacted strongly to his appearance before the Commission despite the boycott resolution. Subsequently, on February 7, 2026, a show cause notice was issued alleging that he had deliberately violated the resolution adopted during the General Body meeting held on January 19, 2026.
The applicant later submitted his explanation before the Secretary of the Tripura Bar Association regarding the allegations made against him. He also approached the Bar Council of Tripura, which granted a stay on the proceedings initiated against him through a letter dated February 18, 2026, pending further orders.
He argued that his professional duty to represent his client could not be curtailed by a collective decision taken by the Bar Association. In support of his case, he relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India.
The advocate subsequently submitted his explanation and also approached the Bar Council of Tripura, which granted a stay on the proceedings initiated against him.
Despite this, the Bar Association continued pursuing disciplinary action and even questioned the authority of the Bar Council to interfere in the matter. Taking note of these developments, the High Court strongly criticised the manner in which proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner.
The Court said,
“This Court has also felt like it is an occasion where the High Court judiciary has raised the occasion in the State of Tripura to protect the majesty and dignity of the legal fraternity and thus, this Court is of the opinion that the manner in which the Office bearers of the Bar Association have initiated action against the applicant in issuing a show Cause Notice is irrelevant, extraneous and also arbitrary,”
Accordingly, the court imposed an interim stay until further order and the Applicant was directed to take steps with the Registry for issuing of notice upon the un-represented respondents at the earliest as per procedure.
Advocate S Choudhury appeared in person before the Court. The respondents were represented by advocates M Sarkar and A Kakoti along with Senior Government Advocate P Gautam.
Case Title: Sampad Choudhury v State Of Tripura & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE