Cannot Penalise Lawyers For Attending Court Despite Boycott Calls: Tripura HC [Read Order]

Tripura: The High Court of Tripura has held that a Bar Association cannot initiate disciplinary action against an advocate for appearing before a court or tribunal in discharge of his professional obligations under the Advocates Act and his Vakalatnama, notwithstanding any boycott resolution passed by the Association.

Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, by order dated 11.05.2026 in IA No. 01 of 2026 in WP(C) No. 305 of 2026 (Sri Sampad Choudhury v. State of Tripura and Others), stayed the Tripura Bar Association’s resolution dated 19.01.2026 and permitted the petitioner-advocate to appear before all courts without reference to the said resolution.

The petitioner, Sri Sampad Choudhury, is a junior advocate practicing before the District Bar Association of Tripura, West Tripura District. The Tripura Bar Association passed a resolution on 19.01.2026 calling for a boycott of appearances before all courts, specifically targeting the Court of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala. On 06.02.2026, the petitioner, mindful of his professional duty towards his client, chose to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission despite the subsisting boycott resolution.

Aggrieved by this appearance, the office-bearers of the Bar Association issued a show cause notice dated 07.02.2026 (Ref. No. F3/MISC/TBA/2026/05) to the petitioner, alleging that he had wilfully violated the resolution of the General Body meeting held on 19.01.2026. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the Secretary of the Bar Association and also made a representation before the Chairman of the Bar Council of Tripura, which granted a stay of the Bar Association’s resolution by its letter dated 18.02.2026. The Bar Association’s office-bearers, however, contested the Bar Council’s jurisdiction, contending that the Bar Council of Tripura had no authority to override the Tripura Bar Association’s decision.

The petitioner filed WP(C) No. 305 of 2026 before the High Court challenging the show cause notice and its consequential suspension order, seeking an interim stay of all proceedings against him. Relying on Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India [(2003) 2 SCC 45], the petitioner urged that no lawyer can be prevented or restrained from performing his duties under the Advocates Act and obligations under his Vakalatnama, and that the duty of a lawyer towards his client is paramount.

The Court, on a reading of the notice and pleadings, noted that the petitioner had appeared before the District Consumer Redressal Commission on a date when a boycott resolution was in force and that the Bar Association had issued the show cause notice solely on this ground. The Court observed that the Supreme Court of India has consistently held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott courts and that such actions are wholly unjustified and impermissible in law, and has, in various matters, initiated contempt proceedings against office-bearers of bar associations for restraining advocates from appearing before courts.

Invoking this settled position, the Court held that the manner in which the office-bearers of the Bar Association had initiated action against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice was arbitrary, extraneous, and unsustainable in law. It further held that no Bar Council or Bar Association’s rules, regulations, or bye-laws can demand a boycott of courts, and that no provision of law empowers a bar association to initiate action against an advocate who is performing his lawful duties before any court or forum in fulfilment of his obligations under the Advocates Act and his Vakalatnama.

The Court accordingly stayed the Bar Association’s resolution dated 19.01.2026 and directed that the petitioner is permitted to appear in all courts without any reference to the said resolution, which it declared to be now inoperative. An interim stay of the proceedings against the petitioner was granted until further orders. The Court directed the petitioner to take steps with the Registry for issuance of notice upon the unrepresented respondents and listed the interlocutory application along with the main writ petition.

Counsel: Mr. S. Choudhury (Petitioner in Person), Ms. M. Sarkar, and Mr. A. Kakoti appeared for the petitioner. Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. G.A., appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Sri Sampad Choudhury v. State of Tripura and Others, IA No. 01 of 2026 in WP(C) No. 305 of 2026

[Read Order]