Bar Association Cannot Penalise Lawyers For Attending Court Despite Boycott Calls: Tripura High Court

The High Court of Tripura recently observed that no Bar Council or Bar Association rule, regulation, or by-law authorises boycott of courts or permits disciplinary action against advocates for discharging their professional duties.

While staying action initiated by the Tripura Bar Association against a lawyer who appeared before the Consumer Commission despite a boycott resolution, the Court held that advocates performing their obligations under the Advocates Act and vakalatnama cannot be restrained from appearing before courts or forums on behalf of clients.

Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud remarked that: “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 a 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.”

Background:

The petitioner, a junior advocate practicing in West Tripura, challenged a show-cause notice dated 07.02.2026 issued by the Tripura Bar Association after he appeared before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala on 06.02.2026.

According to the case, the Bar Association had earlier passed a resolution on 19.01.2026 calling for boycott of appearances before the Consumer Commission, particularly in the court of its President. Despite the resolution, the petitioner chose to represent his client before the Commission considering his professional obligation towards the client.

The Bar Association thereafter issued a show-cause notice alleging that the advocate had wilfully violated the resolution passed in the general body meeting. The petitioner submitted his explanation and also approached the Bar Council of Tripura, which granted stay on the Bar Association's action until further orders.

The High Court noted that the core grievance of the petitioner was that “no lawyer can be prevented/restrained by any person in performing his duties as per the Advocates Act and obligation under Vakalatnama.” The Court further observed that the duty of a lawyer towards the client is paramount.

The Court also expressed concern regarding the conduct of the office bearers of the Bar Association in initiating disciplinary action against the advocate merely for attending court proceedings. It held that the issuance of the show-cause notice was “irrelevant, extraneous and also arbitrary.”

Thus, the High Court stayed the operation of the Bar Association's resolution dated and permitted the petitioner to appear before all courts without reference to the impugned boycott resolution.

Case Name: Sri Sampad ChoudharyV/s The State of Tripura

Case No.: IA No.01 of 2026 in WP ( C) No.305 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order