The Tripura High Court has held that bar associations have no authority to take disciplinary action against advocates who decide to appear before courts during collective boycotts called by lawyers’ bodies.
The ruling reinforces the principle that an advocate’s primary duty is to the client and the court, and that participation in a strike or boycott cannot be made compulsory. The court observed that members of the bar retain the professional freedom to discharge their obligations regardless of resolutions passed by an association.
Courts in India have repeatedly discouraged the practice of abstaining from work. The Supreme Court has earlier described lawyers’ strikes as illegal and has cautioned bar bodies against coercing members into joining them. The Tripura decision aligns with that line of reasoning, treating attempts to punish dissenting advocates as an interference with the administration of justice.
By shielding advocates from penal consequences, the verdict is expected to give practitioners greater confidence to continue representing litigants even when boycotts are announced, reducing delays caused by collective abstention from court work.
Created by Ayen Stabel.
Stabel is AI and can make mistakes.
Sources:
https://lawstreet.co/