High Court · 2025

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, Nagarcoil Bar Association would oppose by stating that the conduct of the petitioner in the Bar Association is not in accordance with the bylaws. He used to disrespect the members of the Bar Association and he has committed certain misconducts and action was initiated against him by Nagarcoil Bar Association. The petitioner appeared before Judicial Magistrate-II, Nagarcoil, on 21.11.2024 and no one prevented him from attending the Court proceedings. 4.Allegations and counter allegations are made between the petitioner and the Nagarcoil Bar Association. Such disputed facts need not be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings. It is for the parties to resolve the same. Considering the incident that had happened in 2024, this Court is of the considered view that the brotherhood between the lawyers are to be maintained in the interest of judicial administration as they are the first Officers of the Court. They are not expected to pick up quarrel on flimsy grounds. Abstaining Court proceedings is an illegal act as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several judgments. Law relating to boycotts are no more res integra and settled by the Apex Court. When a particular Bar Association declared boycott, few advocates participated in Court proceedings are either ill-treated or prevented from attending the Court 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis proceedings, which is the common complaint raised by the Advocates, who all are interested in attending the Court proceedings. Nagarcoil Bar Association is a recognized Bar Association by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. They are expected to maintain good conduct towards its members in order to maintain peace and tranquility and unity in order to protect the rights and interests of the lawyers and to maintain judicial decipline so as to win the confidence of the public at large.5.The Nagarcoil Bar Association has filed a common better counter affidavit stating that the Nagarcoil Bar Association had decided to drop the further charges against the writ petitioner and revoke the suspension order provided that the writ petitioner apologies in writing for his conduct to the respondent Bar Association. Announcement of boycott by the Nagarcoil Bar Association per se is illegal. After announcement, the petitioner attending the Court proceeding is his legal right. Thus, attending the Court proceedings cannot be construed as a misconduct either under the bylaw of the Association or under the Advocates Act. However, the Nagarcoil Bar Association would submit that the petitioner has misbehaved with other members after attending the Court proceedings or sometime thereafter. However, these allegations are unnecessary and probably 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis raised in order to settled personal score. This Court will not approve such conduct of the lawyers, more specifically, in a recognized Bar Association for whom the judicial administration provided space for practicing law in various Courts.6.Taking note of the allegations and counter allegations and considering the affidavit filed by Nagarcoil Bar Association, this Court is inclined to drop all further proceedings initiated. All those issues shall not be reopened nor adjudicated and in order to maintain peace, tranquility and unity in the Bar Association, the writ petitioner is allowed to resume his membership and utilize the Bar Association facilities inside the Court premises.7.While giving quietus to the dispute between the parties, this Court would like to remind the recognized Bar Associations, who are in occupation of the Court buildings in various Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu, when an Advocate accepts a brief, he assumes a responsibility towards his client, the Court and the public at large. By such acceptance, he enters into an agreement, whether express or implied, with the client, thereby undertaking to discharge his duty diligently. The provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 make it abundantly clear that the relationship between lawyer and client is not confined to contractual 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis terms, but flows from the professional status of the Advocate. It is fundamentally, a position of trust and confidence, demanding standards of conduct befitting that status. 8.The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the legal profession is a noble calling, carrying duties not merely to clients but to the Court, the public and the justice system itself. In Sanjeev Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 619, the Court observed:"20. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They took their profession seriously and practised it with dignity, deference and devotion. If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will be too small in making the system efficient, effective and credible. The casualness and indifference with which some members practise the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving. If people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the courts the unpleasant duty. We say no more."8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9.These observations underline that any conduct which undermines public confidence in the profession including participation in strikes or boycotts, strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice. When an advocate accepts a brief, it becomes his bounden duty to safeguard the client's interests with due diligence. Failure to do so may attract consequences for professional neglect and renders the advocate answerable to the client. If he is unable to appear when the matter is called, it is incumbent upon him either to make alternative arrangements for proper representation or to return the brief in sufficient time. In essence, the duty of an advocate extends not only to the client but equally to the Court, and he is bound to extend his cooperation to ensure the orderly administration of justice.10.JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS ON ADVOCATES' STRIKES AND BOYCOTTSThe Supreme Court, on numerous occasions, has examined the legality and propriety of strikes, boycotts, and abstention from court work by members of the Bar. The consistent judicial position is that such actions are impermissible, being contrary to the professional duties of advocates, detrimental to litigants' rights, and obstructive to the administration of justice. The decisions set out the Court's 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis emphatic pronouncements on the subject.11.The Supreme Court in the case of Ex. - Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, (2003) 2 SCC 45 in para 35, in particular, has observed thus:"35. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot not attend Courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocates decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would befinal and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him."12.The Supreme Court in S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1984) 1 SCC 722: 1984 SCC OnLine SC 27 has emphasised that it is the bounden duty of every advocate, particularly in criminal matters, to attend the trial from day to day once a brief has been accepted. Having undertaken such representation, failure to 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis remain present without sufficient cause amounts to a breach of professional duty.2.".....Before commencing a trial, a Sessions Judge must satisfy himself that all necessary evidence is available. If it is not, he may postpone the case, but only on the strongest possible ground and for the shortest possible period. Once the trial commences, he should, except for a very pressing reason which makes an adjournment inevitable, proceed de die in diem until the trial is concluded. 3.We are unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced by the petitioner. It is stated that his Advocate is finding it difficult to attend the court from day-to-day. It is the duty of every Advocate, who accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from day-to-day. We cannot over-stress the duty of the Advocate to attend to the trial from day-to-day. Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend. The criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, dismissed."13.In Roman Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor, (2001) 1 SCC 118: 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1566, the hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether a litigant should bear the consequences when his advocate, in response to a strike call issued by the Bar Association, absented himself from court proceedings. The Court categorically held that participation in such strikes 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis does not entitle an advocate to seek indulgence from the court by way of adjournment, nor is the court obliged to defer the matter on that account. It was held:"29. In the light of the consistent views of the judiciary regarding the strike by the advocates, no leniency can be shown to the defaulting party, and if the circumstances warrant, to put such party back in the position as it existed before the strike. In that event, the adversary is entitled to be paid exemplary costs. The litigant suffering costs has a right to be compensated by his defaulting counsel for the costs paid. In appropriate cases the court itself can pass effective orders, for dispensation of justice with the object of inspiring confidence of the common man in the effectiveness of judicial system. In the instant case the respondent ha to be held entitled to the payment of costs, consequent upon the setting aside the ex parte order passed in his favour."14.In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC 556, it was observed that:"An advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants. Therefore, he is expected to follow norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Counsel's paramount duty is to the client. The client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere and honest treatment."15.In Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P, (2016) 8 SCC 335 the Supreme Court underscored the urgent need to review and strengthen the regulatory framework governing the legal profession, given its pivotal role in the justice delivery system. Noting the prevalence of certain malpractices and emphasising that convicted persons have no place in this noble calling, the Court called for restructuring the Bar Council of India on the lines of other professional regulatory bodies.16.In Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27, the Supreme Court observed:“42. Frequent strikes seriously obstruct access to justice... By every strike, irreversible damage is suffered by the judicial system... Taxpayers' money is lost on account of judicial and public time being lost. Nobody is accountable for such loss and harassment.49...... Since the strikes are in violation of law laid down by this Court, the same amount to contempt... 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Every resolution to go on strike and abstain from work is per se contempt.50. Accordingly, we consider it necessary, with a view to enforce fundamental right of speedy access to justice under Articles 14 and 21 and law laid by this Court, to direct the Ministry of Law and Justice to present at least a quarterly report on strikes/abstaining from work, loss caused and action proposed. The matter can thereafter be considered in its contempt or inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Court may, having regard to the fact situation, hold that the office-bearers of the Bar Association/Bar Council who passed the resolution for strike or abstaining from work, are liable to be restrained from appearing before any court for a specified period or until such time as they purge themselves of contempt to the satisfaction of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned based on an appropriate undertaking/conditions. They may also be liable to be removed from the position of office-bearers of the Bar Association forthwith until the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned so permits on an appropriate undertaking being filed by them. This may be in addition to any other action that may be taken for the said illegal acts of obstructing access to justice."15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17.In R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras [(2019) 16 SCC 407], the Supreme Court struck down the insertion of Rules 14A-14D in the Madras High Court Rules, 1970, which empowered the court to debar an advocate from appearing. It held that the High Court had overstretched and exceeded its authority by encroaching upon the Bar's autonomy in disciplinary matters. The Court cautioned that a "sycophant and fearful Bar" is inconsistent with the spirit of fair administration of justice, as the Bar is the spokesperson for the judiciary, which itself cannot speak. Advocates must protect the reputation of honest judges while ensuring that allegations against corrupt judges are brought to light.18.Reiterating the principles in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal, the Court held that strikes are ordinarily impermissible and amount to contempt, save in the rarest of rare situations where "democracy is in danger" or "the entire judicial system is at stake." Even then, abstention from work may be tolerated only for a single day, and only where the dignity, integrity, and independence of the Bar and judiciary are threatened.16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

19.In B.L.Wadhera v State, [2002 (9) SCC 108], the Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that if on the ground of strike a lawyer abstains from appearing in court then he is conducting professional misconduct, a breach of contract, breach of trust and breach of professional duty. The Court observed:"35. In view of the facts and the legal position stated above we issue the following declarations and directions: -(a) Lawyers have no right to strike. Strike by lawyers is illegal and unethical.(b) If, on the ground of strike, a lawyer abstains from appearing in court in a case in which he holds the vakalat for the client, he is committing a professional misconduct, a breach of contract, a breach of trust and a breach of professional duty.(c) If, in the name of strike, anyone obstructs or prevents a lawyer from discharging his professional duty of appearing in court, he is committing a criminal offence and is interfering with the administration of justice and is committing contempt of Court.(d) There is absolutely no justification for the continuance of the ongoing strike by lawyers and we expect them to recall it immediately.20.In District Bar Association., Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, (AIR 2020 SC 1412), the Apex Court held, strikes/boycotts by lawyers on working 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Saturday's were seen as an obstruction to the access to justice, The Supreme Court observed:"6.6.....Even in the present case, the advocates have been boycotting the courts on all Saturdays... Every month on 3-4 Saturdays, the advocates are on strike and abstain from working, on one pretext or the other. If the lawyers would have worked on those days, it would have been in the larger interest and it would have achieved the ultimate goal of speedy justice, which is now recognised as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It would have helped in early disposal of the criminal trials and, therefore, it would have been in the interest of those who are languishing in the jail and waiting for their trial to conclude. When the institution is facing a serious problem of arrears and delay in disposal of cases, how the institution as a whole can afford such four days' strike in a month.""6.7. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioner that to go on strike/boycott courts is a fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and it is a mode of peaceful representation to express the grievances by 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the lawyers' community is concerned, such a right to freedom of speech cannot be exercised at the cost of the litigants and/or at the cost of the justice delivery system as a whole. To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, Nobody has the right to go on strike/boycott court. Even, such a right, if any, cannot affect the rights of others and more particularly, the right of speedy justice guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In any case, all the aforesaid submissions are already considered by this court earlier and more particularly in the decisions referred to hereinabove. Therefore, boycotting courts on every Saturday in the entire district of Dehradun, in several districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar District in the State of Uttarakhand is not justifiable at all and as such it tantamounts to contempt of the courts, as observed by this Court in the aforesaid decisions....."21.In Common Cause v. Union of India [AIR 2005 SC 4442], the Supreme Court in this order, arising from contempt petitions against the Delhi High Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association, reaffirmed the principles laid down in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India that lawyers have no right 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to strike or boycott courts, not even on a token basis. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must proceed with matters despite strikes, and advocates who abstain from attending court in such circumstances may be personally liable for costs and damages to clients. It stressed that Bar Councils and Bar Associations have no authority to call for strikes, must reject such requisitions outright, and are duty-bound to maintain professional standards and dignity of the courts. The judgment also underscored that control over in-court conduct lies with the judiciary, not the Bar Councils, and courts may frame rules to debar advocates guilty of contempt or unprofessional behaviour from appearing before them.22.JUDICIAL DUTY TO PROCEED DESPITE ADVOCATES' STRIKES:The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that courts cannot defer or adjourn proceedings merely because of a strike or boycott call by advocates. The obligation to hear and decide cases is paramount, and yielding to such abstentions would undermine both the independence of the judiciary and the litigants' right to timely justice. The following decisions illustrate the judiciary's firm stance in continuing judicial work despite the absence of counsel due to strikes.20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

23.In K. John koshy & ors. V. Dr. Tarakeshwar prasad shaw [(1998) 8 SCC 624], the Supreme Court considered whether a court could defer hearing a matter where counsel for both sides were absent due to a Bar Association strike. It was held:"7. It is an admitted fact that since the members of the Calcutta Bar were on strike, the counsel for both sides were absent and hence the Court passed the order after hearing the respondent. If the matter was urgent and the respondent who was present in person insisted on being heard and orders being passed on his application as his career was at stake, could the Court refuse to take up his application for hearing and refuse to pass an appropriate order on merits? The answer must obviously be in the negative because to do so would tantamount to the Court becoming privy to the strike. The court is under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it and cannot shirk that obligation on the ground that the advocates are on strike. Therefore, the Division Bench was fully justified in proceeding to hear the respondent and in passing orders on merits. We are, therefore, of the opinion that despite the same if counsel did not appear, they are only to blame. The Court in the circumstances did the right thing to proceed to hear the case."21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

24.In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 37, it was held:"16. No court is obliged to adjourn a cause because of the strike call given by any association of advocates or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or any particular court. It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed with the judicial business during court hours. No court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating." 25.The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and various High Courts leaves no doubt that strikes and boycotts by advocates are incompatible with the constitutional mandate of access to justice and the professional obligations inherent in the legal calling. While members of the Bar hold an honoured place in society and play an indispensable role in safeguarding the rule of law, that status carries a duty to act in a manner that does not compromise the administration of justice or the rights of litigants. 26. Advocates are required to assert their legitimate right to be heard, while maintaining due respect towards the Bench, and to discharge their functions with 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis fearlessness and independence. Where an advocate is himself subjected to improper treatment, he must vindicate the independence of the Bar through lawful means. Grievances, however genuine, must be pursued through lawful and constructive means that preserve public confidence in the profession. As repeatedly affirmed in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal, Krishnakant Tamrakar, and allied rulings, the right to protest cannot extend to acts that obstruct courts or delay the dispensation of justice. 27. Bar Associations must therefore reflect deeply before resorting to any form of abstention from work, recognising that their primary duty is to the litigants they represent and to the justice system they serve. Alternative mechanisms for collective representation of concerns should be developed, ensuring that professional integrity is maintained, the independence of the Bar is safeguarded, and the fundamental right to speedy justice remains inviolate. Only through such a balanced approach can the dignity of the legal profession be preserved and the constitutional promise of justice be fulfilled.28.In respect of the cases cited supra, the various directions issued by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the case in Ishwar Shandilya Vs. State 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of Uttarakhand and Ors reported as confirmed by the Supreme Court is being followed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puthuchery. Those directions ought to be scrupulously followed by the Lawyers as well as by the Bar Associations and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. 29.It is needless to state that the directions issued by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the case of Ishwar Shandilya cited supra, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court and the other judgments referred in the aforementioned paragraphs ought to be scrupulously followed. The Supreme Court has recorded that despite the strong words used by the Apex Court in several decisions criticizing the conduct of the lawyers to go on strikes it appears that the message has not reached. This being the observations made by the Supreme Court and the situation remains that the few Bar Associations continue to announce boycott, this Court is inclined to pass following orders:-(i)The Bar Associations across the State of Tamil Nadu are directed not to declare any boycott/abstain from attending Court proceedings, subject to the exceptions granted by the Supreme Court to declare one day boycott with the prior consultation with the Hon'ble Chief Justice or the Principal District Judge, as the case may 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis be and by following the procedures.(ii)In the event of declaring boycott by any Bar Association, in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, all such boycotts are to be declared illegal andthe Office Bearers of such Bar Association are to be held liable for committing misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, in such an event, is directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Office Bearers/Advocates, who all are responsible and accountable for declaration of illegal boycotts of Courts under the Act and the Rules (iii) Interim suspension of practice is an inbuilt provision contemplated under the Advocates Act and if necessary, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry may suspend those lawyers pending enquiry. (iv)The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is directed to issue necessary circular/instructions to all the recognized Bar 25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Associations across the State of Tamil Nadu along with the copy of this judgment.30.In the result, the Writ petitions are allowed and the order impugned in these writ petitions are set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.(S.M.S., J.) & (G.A.M., J.) 19.08.2025 NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NocpTo1.The Secretary, The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.2.The Nagercoil Bar Association, Combined Court Campus, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District-629 001.26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.ANDG. ARUL MURUGAN , J. cpW.P.(MD)Nos.15388 of 2025 and 30229 of 202419.08.202527/27