Bar Association Can’t Initiate Action Against Lawyer Representing Matter Before Court Amid Boycott: Tripura High Court

The High Court was considering an Interlocutory application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Chapter VIII Rule A (3)(g) of the High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023, seeking the passing of an ad interim Order staying the operation of a show-cause notice of the Tripura Bar Association.

The Single Bench of Justice T. Amarnath Goud held, “No Bar Council or Bar Association’s Rules and Regulations or its bye laws demands for boycotting of Courts. In any event, if a lawyer is attending the Court there is no rule under law empowers the respondents to initiate action against the lawyer who is performing his lawful duties before the Court of law / forum in order to fulfill his obligatory duties under Advocates Acts and Vakalatnama towards his client.”

Advocate S. Choudhury represented the Applicant, while Senior Government Advocate P. Gautam represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The application was filed by a junior Advocate practising at the District Bar Association of Tripura. The Office bearers of the said Bar Association passed a resolution for boycotting the appearance in the Courts, more particularly in the Court of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala. The applicant chose to represent the matter before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

The Office bearers of the Bar Association allegedly became furious against the action of the petitioner, in attending the Court and a Show cause Notice was issued against the applicant, wherein it was stated that the applicant, being a member of this Bar Association, had willfully gone against the resolution of the General Body meeting and appeared before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The applicant thus approached the High Court, challenging the impugned notice and seeking an interim order for the stay of the proceedings against him.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that since the applicant had represented the matter before the District Consumer Redressal Commission against the resolution of the Bar Association, they had issued a notice to which the applicant submitted his explanation and further moved before the Bar Council and also obtained a stay order. It was further noticed that though the applicant had obtained the relief of staying the resolution of the Bar Association by the Bar Council of the State of Tripura, the Office bearers of the Bar Association again wrote a letter to the Chairman, Bar Council of Tripura, citing that the Bar Council of Tripura had no jurisdiction to issue any order overriding the Tripura Bar Association’s decision.

The Bench highlighted how the Apex Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott courts, and such actions are wholly unjustified and impermissible in law. It was further noted how the Apex Court has come down heavily in initiating contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the Bar Association, wherein the lawyers are injuncted in the name of boycotting in appearing before the Court.

"In the present context, 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”, it stated.

The Bench concluded that the applicant was entitled to an interim relief. “...thus, the action of the Bar Association in its resolution dated 19.01.2026 is stayed. Consequently, the applicant is permitted to appear in all Courts without any reference to the said resolution of the Bar Association as the same is now inoperative, it ordered.

Cause Title: Sri Sampad Choudhury v. The State Of Tripura (Case No.: WP(C) No. 305 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate S. Choudhury, Petitioner-in-Person, Advocates M. Sarkar, A. Kakoti

Respondent: Senior Government Advocate P. Gautam

Click here to read/download Order