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."
Recent history of boycott of judicial work by Advocates
Indian Express reported Bar Association boycotts senior judge for ‘insulting’ advocate when the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association passed a resolution in its Full House, asking for the transfer of Justice Singh from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Bar boycotted his court until the transfer demand is not met. The issue was sparked when Advocate M K Tiwari and Justice Uma Nath Singh got involved in a heated exchange. The advocates of of Punjab and Haryana High Court boycotted Justice Uma Nath Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court for 16-days. Subsequently, facing prolonged boycott by the Bar, Justice Uma Nath requested Chief Justice of India for his transfer him because Bar refused to appear before the Bench headed by him.
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. Advocate General is also an ex-officio member of the BSBC. The Times of India had reported about it in its news story entitled Patna High Court 'Pulls up' Bar Council for 'boycott' call.
Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council boycotted the Courts on November 24, 2015. After the flash boycott decision was announced by the Bar Associations on November 23, 2015, the Court work was completely paralysed for the second half of the day, the State Bar Council announced a State wide boycott, by convening an emergent meeting, even on the following Court working day i.e. November 24, 2015.
The Times of India had reported that advocates of Allahabad High Court had abstained from judicial work on July 11, 2024 in order to highlight the problems being faced by them in day to day functioning of judicial system. Meanwhile, work in the high court remained paralysed, as the advocates on a call given by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association boycotted the judicial work.
The Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations had announced a complete abstention from work on August 22–23, 2025, regarding a notification about police evidence recording.
Earlier, Patna High Court Advocates 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.
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.” 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 did not issue any order against the Krishna Zilla Bar Federation of Andhra Pradesh Bar.
Now Chandigarh Advocates have decided to abstain from work till May 13, 2026 to protest proposed Tenancy Act.
The Hindi reported Advocates boycott court proceedings in Tiruvannamalai, demanding air-conditioned halls, when members of the Bar Association, Advocates Association, and Lawyers Association jointly stayed away from court proceedings at the Combined District Court Complex in Tiruvannamalai town on April 24, 2026, demanding air-conditioned court halls in the complex.
Unlike in other States, the Bihar's advocate associations withdrew their call for boycott being law abiding entities after the intervention of BCI but their grievances have not been addressed as yet. BCI ought to ensure that their grievances are redressed at the earliest.
Role of BCI and State Bar Councils
Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right to the Bar Council of India to give directions to the State Bar Councils. Associations may be separate bodies but all advocates who are members of such associations are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils. Therefore, the Bar Councils can always control their conduct.
Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides that even in disciplinary matters the final appellate authority is the Supreme Court. If the Bar Councils do not rise to the occasion and perform their duties by taking disciplinary action on a complaint from a client against an advocate for non-appearance by reason of a call for strike or boycott, on an appeal the Supreme Court can and will.
Supreme Court and the Constitution of India
Responding to the contention 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 the lawyers’ community is concerned, the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M. R. Shah has held in District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.(2020) that "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 courts. 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." This 27-page long judgement dated February 28, 2020 was authored by Justice Shah.
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