The High Court of Tripura recently held that bar associations cannot penalise a lawyer for appearing in court despite a boycott call by the bar body [Sampad Choudhury v State Of Tripura & Ors.].Justice T Amarnath Goud made the observation while granting interim relief to a junior advocate who faced suspension and disciplinary action from Tripura Bar Association for discharging his professional duties.In a verdict passed on May 11, the Court noted that the concerned lawyer was suspended for appearing before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Agartala in defiance of a boycott resolution.The Court observed that no resolution or by-law of a Bar body can override an advocate’s statutory duty under the Advocates Act to represent clients and assist the court."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," held the Court..Hence, the Court stayed the operation of the Bar Association’s resolution dated January 19 as well as all consequential actions, including the show cause notice and suspension initiated against the junior advocate.He was also permitted to appear before all courts without being bound by the boycott call, rendering the resolution inoperative for the time being..The Court further agreed with the settled position laid down by the Supreme Court that strikes and boycott calls by lawyers are impermissible."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," noted the Court..The petitioner, a junior advocate and member of the Tripura Bar Association, had approached the High Court challenging a show cause notice issued on February 7 and the consequential suspension, after he chose to appear before the consumer forum in line with his professional obligations. He argued that his duty towards his client could not be curtailed by a collective decision of the Bar Association. He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India..According to the records, the Bar Association had passed a resolution on January 19 calling upon its members to abstain from appearing before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala. When the petitioner appeared before the forum on February 6, the Association issued a show cause notice alleging that he had wilfully violated the resolution. The junior advocate submitted his explanation and also moved the Bar Council of Tripura, which granted a stay on the proceedings initiated against him..However, the Bar Association continued to pursue action and even questioned the Bar Council’s authority to intervene. Taking note of this, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner."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," the Court said..Advocate S Choudhury, the petitioner, appeared in person.Advocates M Sarkar and A Kakoti along with Senior Government Advocate P Gautam represented the respondents..[Read Order]
