Bar Associations Cannot Disciplinary Action Against Lawyers Who Attend Court Despite Boycott Resolutions: Tripura High Court
Overview of the Judgment
In a significant ruling that carries far-reaching implications for the legal fraternity across India, the Tripura High Court at Agartala has unequivocally held that bar associations are not empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings or impose penalties on an advocate who chooses to fulfill professional obligations by appearing before a court or tribunal, even when a boycott resolution is in force. The judgment was delivered in Sampad Choudhary vs State of Tripura & Ors in IA No. 01 of 2026 in WP(C) No. 305 of 2026, pronounced on May 11, 2026, by a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud.
This ruling addresses a matter of fundamental importance — the tension between collective decisions taken by bar bodies and the individual professional duty of an advocate toward his or her client. The Court's observations leave no room for ambiguity: an advocate's obligation to the client is supreme and cannot be overridden by a bar association's internal resolution.
Background and Facts of the Case
Who Was the Petitioner?
The petitioner, a junior advocate enrolled as a member of the District Bar Association, West Tripura, was practicing before various forums in the State of Tripura. The dispute arose from a sequence of events set in motion when the office bearers of the Bar Association passed a resolution on January 19, 2026, calling for a boycott of appearances before courts — more specifically, targeting the Court of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.
What Did the Advocate Do?
Driven by his sense of professional responsibility and his duty under the Vakalatnama executed in favor of his client, the petitioner chose to represent his client before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala on February 6, 2026, notwithstanding the boycott resolution that was in force on that date.
What Action Did the Bar Association Take?
The office bearers of the Bar Association took strong exception to the petitioner's decision to attend court. Treating his appearance as an act of defiance against the collective resolution of the General Body meeting held on January 19, 2026, a show cause notice dated February 7, 2026 (Ref No. F3/MISC/TBA/2026/05) was issued against him. He was thereafter subjected to a suspension order as a consequence of the disciplinary action initiated by the Bar Association.
The petitioner responded by:
- Filing a detailed explanation to the Secretary, Tripura Bar Association.
- Representing the matter before the Chairman, Bar Council of Tripura.
- Obtaining a stay on the proceedings from the Bar Council of Tripura vide its letter dated February 18, 2026.