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.
