Case Law Details
Son of Late Bidhu Bhusan Choudhury Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court)
The Tripura High Court considered an interlocutory application filed along with a writ petition challenging a show cause notice and consequential suspension proceedings initiated by a Bar Association against a junior advocate. The advocate had appeared before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala on 06.02.2026 despite a resolution passed by the Bar Association on 19.01.2026 calling for boycott of court appearances. According to the petitioner, he chose to appear in court in discharge of his professional responsibility towards his client. Following his appearance, the Bar Association issued a show cause notice alleging violation of the boycott resolution. The petitioner submitted his explanation and also approached the Bar Council of Tripura, which granted stay of further action.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that no lawyer could be restrained from performing professional duties under the Advocates Act and obligations arising from the vakalatnama. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, wherein strikes and court boycotts by lawyers were held to be impermissible.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had admittedly appeared before the Consumer Commission during the period when the boycott resolution was in force. It also recorded that despite the stay granted by the Bar Council, the office bearers of the Bar Association questioned the jurisdiction of the Bar Council to override the Association’s decision.
Referring to Supreme Court decisions holding that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts, the High Court observed that such actions are wholly unjustified and impermissible in law. The Court further noted that the Supreme Court had previously initiated contempt proceedings against office bearers of Bar Associations for preventing lawyers from appearing before courts in the name of boycott.
The Court held that the action of the Bar Association in issuing the show cause notice against the petitioner was irrelevant, extraneous, arbitrary, and contrary to law. It observed that no Bar Council rules, Bar Association regulations, or bye-laws require boycott of courts, and there is no legal provision empowering the respondents to initiate action against an advocate for performing lawful professional duties before a court or forum.
Accordingly, the High Court granted interim relief by staying the operation of the Bar Association’s resolution dated 19.01.2026 and permitting the petitioner to appear before all courts without reference to the said resolution. The interim stay was directed to continue until further orders in the writ petition.
Advocates appeared: Mr. Abhijeet Kakoti and Mr. Sampad Choudhury, Petitioner in Person.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TRIPURA HIGH COURT
1. This Interlocutory application has been filed along with the Writ Petition No. 305 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Chapter VIII Rule A (3)(g) of the High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023 seeking the following reliefs:-
“ i. Pass an ad interim Order staying the operation of Show cause notice dated 07.02.2026 (Ref No. F3/MISC/ TBA/2026/05) issued by Respondent No.3 and the consequential suspension order against the Petitioner, till disposal of the connected Writ Petition.
ii. Call for records.
iii. Pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court considered fit and proper.”.
2. It is the case of the applicant that he is a junior advocate practicing at District Bar Association of Tripura, West Tripura District. The Office bearers of the said Bar Association has passed a resolution on 19.01.2026 for boycotting the appearance in the Courts more particularly in the Court of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala. The applicant feeling responsibility towards his client and being a young lawyer have chosen to represent the matter before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala on 06.02.2026.
3. The Office bearers of the Bar Association becomes furious against the action of the petitioner herein, in attending the Court and thereafter on 07.02.2026 a Show cause Notice has been issued against the applicant wherein it has been stated that the applicant being a member of this Bar Association have willfully gone against the resolution of the General Body meeting held on 19.01.2026 and appeared before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Agartala on 06.02.2026 to which the applicant has filed an explanation to the Secretary, Tripura Bar Association and he has further represented the matter before the Chairman, Bar Counsel of Tripura and Bar Council of Tripura has granted stay until further orders(s) by its letter dated 18.02.2026.
4. In the present writ petition the applicant has challenged the impugned notice and by filing this instant application has sought for interim order for staying of the proceedings against him. The main grievance of the applicant is that no lawyer can be prevented / restrained by any person in performing his duties as per the Advocates Act and obligation under Vakalatnama. The duty of a lawyer towards his/her client is paramount and the manner in which the Bar Association has acted against the applicant is uncalled for and places reliance on Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 of Hon’ble Supreme Court and prayed to interfere with the action of the respondents Bar Association.
5. On a fair reading of the notice and on perusal of the pleadings, it is evident from the record that admittedly, the applicant has appeared before the District Consumer Redressal Commission on 06.02.2026 and on which date there was a resolution in force of Bar Association to boycott the Court and in restraining all advocates in attending / appearing before the State Forum for whatever the reasons. Since, the applicant has represented the matter before the District Consumer Redressal Commission against the resolution of the Bar Association, they have issued a notice to which the applicant has submitted his explanation and further move before the Bar Council and also obtained stay order, though the applicant has got the relief of staying the resolution of the Bar Association by Bar Council of the State of Tripura, the Office bearers of Bar Association again wrote a letter to the Chairman, Bar Council of Tripura citing that Bar Council of Tripura has no jurisdiction to issue any order overriding the Tripura Bar Association’s decision.
6. 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. In some other matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily in initiating contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the Bar Association wherein the lawyers are injuncted on the name of boycotting in appearing before the Court.
7. Considering the stand taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India , 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.
8. 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. 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 .
9. For the reasons stated above, this Court feels that the applicant is entitled for an interim relief at this stage and 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.
10. Accordingly, there shall be an interim stay until further order(s).
11. Applicant shall take steps with the Registry for issuing of notice upon the un-represented respondents at the earliest as per procedure.
12. List this Interlocutory Application along with the WP(C) No. 305 of 2026.
Author Bio
