Bar Associations Not Trade Unions; Madras High Court Criticises “Collective Boycotts”, Orders CB-CID Probe and Affirms Right to Counsel as Constitutional Guarantee
Isabella Mariam
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi, delivered a strong admonition against bar associations engaging in collective boycotts that prevent parties from obtaining legal representation. The Court directed the CB-CID to investigate allegations of trespass and police inaction involving certain advocates and ordered the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kanyakumari District to oversee two related criminal trials. Justice Pugalendhi made clear that no bar association or group of lawyers possesses any moral or legal authority to determine who may be defended before a court of law. He held that the right to legal representation is a constitutional guarantee, and any act obstructing that right undermines the rule of law itself.
The petitions arose from incidents and grievances linked to members of the Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram Bar Associations. The matters were heard together as they involved overlapping issues concerning denial of legal representation and alleged criminal conduct involving certain advocates. The accused persons in two separate criminal cases contended that local advocates were unwilling to represent them because the de facto complainants held positions within local Bar Associations. One petitioner, facing trial for offences under Sections 294(b), 307, and 506(ii) IPC, sought transfer of his case to another district, citing inability to secure counsel of choice. In another petition, three accused persons sought transfer of their trial from Kanyakumari District, alleging that the complainant, an advocate, had influenced other members of the Bar to boycott their defense.
Two additional petitions related to allegations of trespass and assault at a residence in Nagercoil. The petitioner, a widow residing as a tenant, claimed that a relative of her landlord, aided by several advocates, forcibly entered her home, damaged property, and attempted to evict her. She further alleged that her complaint to the police was ignored, while a counter-complaint filed weeks later by the alleged offenders was promptly registered against her. The police’s failure to act on her initial complaint led her to seek protection and the quashing of the subsequent FIR.
The Court received a status report from the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, which summarized the sequence of events but did not satisfactorily explain the non-action on the earlier complaints. The report was found incomplete and lacking justification. The petitions invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) corresponding to sections relating to transfer of cases, police protection, and quashing of criminal proceedings.
The Court observed that “allegations of this nature against the Nagercoil Bar Association are not novel. Since 2010, not less than thirty cases have reached this Court alleging that resolutions, formal or informal, were passed preventing appearance for certain accused.” It recorded that “the repeated emergence of allegations of this nature indicates a disturbing pattern of professional indiscipline which threatens to diminish the Bar’s standing as an integral component of the judicial process.”
Justice B. Pugalendhi stated that “the right to a fair trial is a part of Article 21 and the same can be ensured only when the accused are defended by competent Counsel.” The Court recorded that “Article 22(1) guarantees to every person the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of one’s choice.” It further stated that “any act, formal or informal, by a Bar Association or its members, preventing an accused from engaging Counsel of choice, is a direct assault on these constitutional guarantees.”
Referring to the Advocates Act, 1961, and Bar Council of India Rules, the Court noted that “an advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities … Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief.” It recorded that “the law does not recognise ‘collective boycotts,’ ‘informal understandings,’ or ‘social embargoes’ on appearance for any accused person.”
Quoting A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court stated that “such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the Bar, and against professional ethics.” It further referred to Rupashree H.R. v. State of Karnataka, observing that “right to defend oneself is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution … and further right to appear for a client is also a Fundamental Right being a part of carrying on one’s profession as a lawyer.”
It further stated: “This Court cannot turn a blind eye when the right to a fair trial is being compromised under the pretext of professional unity. It is to be reminded that the Bar is not a trade union; it is an institution of constitutional significance. Any attempt to convert it into a pressure group that dictates who may or may not be represented before a Court of law is nothing short of contempt for the rule of law.”
The Court declared: “Let it be made emphatically clear — no Bar Association, nor any collective of lawyers, has any authority, moral or legal, to dictate who may or may not be defended before a Court of law. The right to legal representation is not a matter of professional favour but a constitutional guarantee. Such actions of prevention, whether by formal resolution or informal pressure, strike at the very root of the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees of fair trial and legal representation.”
The Court stated: “With respect to Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.13177 and 13661 of 2025, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District, shall personally monitor the conduct of the trials in S.C.No.121 of 2023 and S.T.C.No.1227 of 2024. The trial Courts shall ensure that the accused are provided effective legal representation of their choice and that no advocate is subjected to intimidation or pressure for appearing on their behalf. If any Advocate or Bar Association is found to have interfered, such conduct shall be immediately reported to this Court and to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for disciplinary action.”
“The investigation in Crime No.215 of 2025 on the file of the Nesamony Police Station, Kanyakumari District, together with the petitioner’s complaints dated 09.07.2025 and 31.07.2025, is hereby transferred to the CB-CID, Kanyakumari District. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Kanyakumari, shall conduct an independent, comprehensive, and time-bound investigation not only into the incident but also into the conduct of the local police in suppressing the petitioner’s complaints and the alleged involvement of Advocates in the trespass and damage to the property in question. The investigation shall be completed and a report be filed before the jurisdictional Court within eight weeks.”
“The petitioners / aggrieved parties are at liberty to file detailed complaints before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, if any member of the Bar is found to have violated professional ethics by discouraging or preventing appearance for any accused. Any Advocate found participating in or endorsing a boycott of appearance for any accused shall be dealt with sternly, as such conduct constitutes gross professional misconduct and an affront to the justice delivery system. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is directed to treat any complaint regarding collective refusal or intimidation by Bar Associations with utmost seriousness, and proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.”
“With the above observations and directions, all the petitions stand disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. T. Selvan; Mr. R. Anand; Mr. S. Balaji Nivas
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side); Mr. T. Lajapathy Roy, Senior Counsel for Ms. T. Seeni Syed Amma; Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar; Mr. S. Ananth; Ms. J. Anandhavalli
Case Title: Manikandan Nair and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2517
Case Numbers: Crl.OP(MD)Nos.13177, 13661, 12098, 13525 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.10415, 10416, 10767, 10889, 10891 of 2025
Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi
