AGARTALA: A junior advocate’s decision to honour his duty toward his client despite a Bar Association boycott has led the Tripura High Court to declare the association’s retaliatory show cause notice against him arbitrary, with Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud on May 11 staying the boycott resolution and permitting the lawyer to appear in all courts freely.
The petitioner, advocate Sampad Choudhury, practices at the District Bar Association of Tripura, West Tripura District. The Tripura Bar Association had passed a resolution on January 19 directing its members to boycott court appearances, particularly before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala. Feeling a sense of responsibility toward his client, Choudhury chose to appear before the commission on February 6.
The association’s office bearers reacted sharply to his decision. On February 7, a show cause notice was issued against Choudhury, stating that he had willfully defied the general body resolution of January 19 by appearing before the commission.
Choudhury filed an explanation before the TBA Secretary and subsequently approached the Bar Council of Tripura. The Bar Council granted a stay on the notice by its letter dated February 18. However, the TBA office bearers wrote to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Tripura, contending that the Bar Council had no jurisdiction to issue any order overriding the association’s decision.
Left with little option, Choudhury filed a petition before the Tripura High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, along with Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2026, seeking an interim stay on the show cause notice and the consequential suspension order against him pending disposal of the writ petition.
The petitioner appeared in person as an advocate alongside Ms. M. Sarkar, Advocate. The respondents were represented by Mr. A. Kakoti, Advocate, and Mr. P. Gautam, Senior Government Advocate.
The respondents in the case include the State of Tripura, the Bar Council of Tripura, the Tripura Bar Association, and the Registrar of Societies, along with TBA President Mrinal Kanti Biswas, Vice-President Subrata Debnath, Secretary Kaushik Indu, Assistant Secretary Utpal Das, former Assistant Secretary Amar Debbarma, and several members of the TBA Executive Committee.
Justice Goud, after examining the pleadings and the notice, observed that the applicant had indeed appeared before the commission on a date when the boycott resolution was in force. However, the court made clear that this did not justify the association’s action against him.
Also read | Tripura: All Five Accused Get Bail in Delivery Boy Prasenjit Sarkar Death Case
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45, the court noted that lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott courts, and that such actions are wholly unjustified and impermissible in law. The court further noted that in similar matters, the Supreme Court had initiated contempt proceedings against office bearers of bar associations that had restrained lawyers from appearing before courts in the name of boycotts.
Justice Goud held that the manner in which the TBA office bearers had acted against Choudhury was “irrelevant, extraneous and also arbitrary.” The court further stated that the action of the office bearers was “totally contrary to law” and needed 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 that empowers the respondents to initiate action against a lawyer who is performing his lawful duties before a court of law or forum in order to fulfil his obligatory duties under the Advocates Act and Vakalatnama towards his client,” the court stated.
Accordingly, the court stayed the January 19 resolution of the Tripura Bar Association and directed that Choudhury be permitted to appear in all courts without any reference to the said resolution, declaring it inoperative. An interim stay was granted until further orders.
The court also directed Choudhury to take steps with the registry for issuing notice upon the unrepresented respondents at the earliest as per procedure. The interlocutory application has been listed along with WP(C) No. 305 of 2026 for further hearing.