BCI requested Yogesh Chandra Verma, the octogenarian senior advocate, member of Bihar State Bar Council and Chairman, Co-ordination Committee of the three Associations to forthwith withdraw and recall the notice/resolution dated May 7, 2026 insofar as it calls upon members of the Bar to abstain from professional duties on May 11, 2026 or on any other date. They shall not issue, circulate, enforce or act upon any call for abstention, boycott or suspension of court work. The concerned Associations are at liberty to hold a peaceful and dignified meeting and to seek an appropriate meeting with the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court for redressal of their grievances, provided that court work is not obstructed and no advocate is prevented, persuaded or pressurised from appearing before any Court. The concerned Associations shall immediately issue a fresh notice/publication stating that the earlier call for abstention from professional duties has been recalled.
BCI's order reads:"Non-çompliance with this order or any attempt to enforce abstention from work may invite appropriate action in accordance with law and the Rules govèrning professional conduct and discipline. Let a copy of this order be communicated immediately to The Hon'ble Convenor and Member, Co-ordination Committee of the three Associations of Patna High Court, the office bearers of the concerned Associations, the Chairman, Bihar State Bar Council and the Registrar General, Patna High Court, for information and necessary action."
Co-ordination Committee of three Advocate Associations Patna High Court recalls its call for boycott of judicial work on May 11
Responding to the request of the BCI, the Co-ordination Committee of the three Advocate Associations of the Patna High Court met in an extra ordinary meeting on May 9, 2026 at 1:30 PM in the Bar Association Hall, to discuss the request and direction of the Bar Council of India communicated vide its letter dated 08.05.2026. It decided to recall its call for boycott of judicial work but reiterated its grievance. The resolution of the coordination committee reads: "The Co-ordination Committee of the Three Association of the Patna High Court The Co- ordination committee ofthe three associations of the Patna High Court met in an extra ordinary meeting-on 9th May 2026 at 1:30 PM in the Bar Association Hall., to discuss the request and direction of the Bar Council of India communicated vide its letter dated 08.05.2026. The relevant contents of the said letter is as follows:'The Bar Council of India js conscious that members of the Bar may have genuine grievances and may hold meetings, deliberate upon such issues and place their grievances and may hold meeting, deliberate upon such issues and place their grievances before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Patna High Court or any appropriate authority in a respectful and institutional manner. However, any call for abstențion from court work, boycott of courts or suspension of professional duties is impermissible in law and contrary to the settled judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court. Advocates are officers of the Court and no grievance can justify obstruction of judicial work or prejudice to litigants". "Accordingly, the Co- ordination Committee of the Three Associations of the Patna High Court and all concerned office bearers are requested and directed to forthwith withdraw and recall the notice/resolution dated 07.05.2026 insofar as it calls upon members of the Bar to abstain from professional duties on 11.05.2026 or on any other date. They shall not issue, circulate, enforce or act upon any call for abstention, boycott or suspension of court work". "The concerned Associations are at liberty to hold a peaceful and dignified meeting and to seek an appropriate meeting with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Patna High Court for redressal of their grievances, provided that court work is not obstructed and no advocate is prevented, prevented, persuaded or pressurized from appearing before any Court". "The concerned Associations shall immediately issue a fresh notice/ publication stating that the earlier call for abstention from professional duties has been recalled. A copy of such recall notice/ publication shall be sent to the Bar Council of India forthwith."
"Non-compliance with this order or any attempt to enforce abstention from court work may invite appropriate action in accordance With law and the Rules governing professional conduct and discipline.' In view of the above the co- ordination committee, of the three Associations unanimously withdraws its notice dated 08.05.2026 for abstention from professional work on l1.05.2026. The members of the Bar are therefore requested to kindly attend to their professional duties on 11.05.2026. However, the co- ordination committee of the three associations were unanimous, that the Bar being an integral part of the Justice Dispensation system deserves to be given due respect. The Bar also requests the Hon'ble High Court that any decision concerning the Bar be not taken unilaterally and the Bar be taken into confidence. It is requested that the notice no. 03 dated 7th May 2026 be withdrawn and the SOP dated Feb. 2026, be implemented which had been prepared after discussion with all Stake Holders including the Bar. The decision as communicated in notice no. 3 dated 7th May 2006 was never a part of the aforesaid SOP. the senior members and such members of Bar (Senior or Young Lawyers) with disabilities be allowed to use their cars to alight near the lifts as before, which shall after dropping will then go and park in the parking provided. The Bar wishes to communicate that it is also sensitive about the security of the High Court and would co- operate with the administration. As directed by the Hon'ble Chairman BCI, a copy of the resolution bẹ forwarded to BCI forth with."
Earlier, Patna High Court lawyers had announced boycott of Acting Chief Justice’s Court over inaction on assault of 2 lawyers, wherein two lawyers were allegedly assaulted on their way to the High Court in mid-September 2025.
Notably, the Advocate Associations of the Patna High Court had given a call to boycott judicial work on February 25, 2025 against draft Advocates Amendment Bill, 2025.The mere threat of the country-wide boycott of compelled the government to withdraw the proposed bill. The Union law ministry had said that the draft legislation will be “processed afresh for consultation with stakeholders” based on the feedback. It is significant that even BCI had critiqued the bill and objected to it prior to the bar council elections.
It is noteworthy that Bihar State Bar Council (BSBC) had called lawyers across the state to abstain from court work on July 15, 2015. Notably, BCI's chairman is ex-officio member of the BSBC as well. The Times of India had reported about it in its news story entitled Patna High Court 'Pulls up' Bar Council for 'boycott' call.
In Ex.–Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, (2003) 2 SCC 45 in para 35, observed:“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, 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 be final 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.”
Notably, Members of the Bezawada Bar Association (BBA), Krishna Zilla Bar Federation, and the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council abstained from court duties on October 07, 2025, condemning the attack on Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the Supreme Court on Monday. They staged protest demanding immediate measures to guarantee the safety of the judiciary and the Bar. The advocates staged protests at the court complex and near the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar statue, raising slogans such as “Save Judiciary, Save the Nation.” Women advocates demanded that the government initiate measures to prevent recurrence of such incidents.
Later, the lawyers took out a rally from the court complex to Ambedkar Smrithi Vanam and the District Collectorate. Speaking on the occasion, BBA president A.K. Basha had said that if there was no protection even for the CJI, the safety of judges and lawyers across the country was a matter of grave concern. This holds true for judiciary in Bihar as well.
On October 6, 2025 India's judiciary witnessed a disturbing incident when an attempt was made to attack Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) unanimously passed a resolution condemning the attack on CJI, describing it as a “reprehensible act” that is “utterly unbecoming of an officer of the court.” The SCBA had noted that such conduct undermines the mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar. The Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) also issued a resolution condemning the attack.
BCI had not issued any order against the Krishna Zilla Bar Federation of Andhra Pradesh Bar.
Chandigarh Advocates have decided to abstain from work till May 13 to protest proposed Tenancy Act. So far BCI is yet to issue any order.
Bihar's advocate associations withdrew their call for boycott being law abiding entities but their grievances have not been addressed as yet. BCI ought to ensure that their grievances are redressed at the earliest
Chandigarh DBA lawyers to abstain from work till May 13 to protest proposed Tenancy Act
1 comment:
Any Rule or Decision on the point of recall of any movement is against the spirit of Democracy and threatening letter issued by any Association is against the Fundamental Rights of Constitution.
Post a Comment