Court Grants Interim Relief, Allows Lawyer to Defy Bar Association's Resolution and Continue Court Appearances
In a landmark decision, the Tripura High Court has reinforced the professional rights of lawyers by granting interim relief to Sri Sampad Choudhury, allowing him to continue appearing in court despite a resolution by the Tripura Bar Association mandating a boycott. The court's decision, delivered by Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, emphasizes that no resolution by a Bar Association can override the statutory obligations outlined in the Advocates Act, 1961, and the duties owed under a Vakalatnama.
The case arose when Sampad Choudhury, a junior advocate practicing in West Tripura District, attended a court session at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala, on February 6, 2026. This appearance was in defiance of a boycott resolution passed by the District Bar Association on January 19, 2026. Subsequently, Choudhury received a show cause notice from the Bar Association, prompting him to challenge the resolution in court.
In its judgment, the Tripura High Court cited Supreme Court precedents, including the case of Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, affirming that lawyers do not have the right to strike or boycott court proceedings. Such actions are deemed unjustified and impermissible by law. The High Court criticized the Bar Association's actions as arbitrary and contrary to the legal obligations of advocates.
The court's order stays the operation of the Bar Association's resolution and permits Choudhury to appear in courts, underscoring the paramount duty of a lawyer to their client. It calls for the correction of actions by Bar Associations that are irrelevant and extraneous to the lawful duties of advocates.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the dignity and majesty inherent in the legal profession, highlighting that any attempt by Bar Associations to restrict lawyers from performing their professional duties is unlawful. The court's decision ensures that the rights of lawyers to represent their clients are protected, regardless of any internal resolutions within Bar Associations.
Bottom line:-
Lawyers cannot be restrained from performing their professional duties by any resolution of a Bar Association. Such resolutions are contrary to law and violate the Advocates Act, 1961, and the obligations under Vakalatnama.
Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Chapter VIII Rule A (3)(g) of the High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023, Vakalatnama.
Sri Sampad Choudhury v. State Of Tripura, (Tripura)(Agartala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2899737
