Madras High Court Decries Flimsy Boycotts By Lawyers | Directs Bar Council To Act On Specific Misconduct Complaints
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete directed that in the event a specific complaint is submitted by the petitioner against any office bearer of the concerned Bar Association or any practicing lawyer, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry shall initiate appropriate action under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the applicable rules. The Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and specific complaint for necessary proceedings.
The petitioner, an advocate appearing in person, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take cognizance of a representation dated 03.04.2025. The relief sought was the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against certain office bearers of a district Bar Association allegedly involved in misconduct relating to the announcement of boycotts.
The petitioner contended that the third respondent, being a Bar Association, had been frequently announcing boycotts on trivial grounds, thereby disrupting court proceedings. He argued that these actions were causing inconvenience not only to litigants but also to other legal practitioners willing to conduct court proceedings in the normal course.
According to the petitioner, such boycotts hinder access to justice and negatively affect the functioning of the justice delivery system. He stated that he had made a representation to the Bar Council on 03.04.2025, requesting initiation of disciplinary action against the office bearers of the Bar Association responsible for such conduct. He submitted that the Bar Council had failed to act on his representation.
In response, it was noted that the petitioner had not provided the identities of the specific individuals allegedly responsible for the misconduct. The Court recorded that without naming the erring office bearers or providing details of their specific actions, the Bar Council would not be in a position to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings.
The petitioner, during the hearing, expressed his willingness to submit a detailed complaint identifying the individuals allegedly responsible for the conduct in question. The respondents included the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the Principal District Judge, and the Bar Association in question. Legal representation was provided by Mr. R. Jim (party-in-person) for the petitioner, Mr. K.R. Laxman for the first respondent (Bar Council), and Mr. N. Tamilmani for the second respondent (Principal District Judge).
The relief originally sought in the writ petition was for the Court to direct the Bar Council to act upon the general representation dated 03.04.2025. However, the absence of specific factual allegations and named individuals limited the capacity of the Bar Council to proceed with any inquiry or disciplinary measures based on the said representation.
The Court recorded the position of the petitioner as follows: “The petitioner appearing in person could not establish who are all the office bearers illegally and irregularly involved in the affairs of the third respondent – Bar Association. In the absence of any specific complaint regarding misconduct or illegality, if any, committed by the office bearers, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry may not be in a position to initiate appropriate action.”
It was further recorded: “It is needless to state that a complaint must be specific.”
On the issue of lawyers announcing boycotts, the Court made detailed observations on the responsibilities of legal professionals: “The petitioner appearing in person states that for flimsy reasons, boycotts are announced by the third respondent – Bar Association, thereby causing inconvenience to the public at large and other lawyers, who are all ready and willing to appear before the courts for the benefit of the litigants, who are all longing to secure justice in the court of law.”
The Court recorded the binding position on the illegality of such conduct: “The Honourable Supreme Court of India has time and again reiterated that lawyers cannot indulge in boycotting the courts for flimsy reasons and in such an event, strong actions are directed to be initiated by the competent authorities.”
The Court noted: “Legal profession is a noble profession. Lawyers are not the employees or workmen. They are professionals and bound to protect the interest of the litigants and the majesty of the courts.”
On the consequences of frequent boycotts, the Court stated: “Boycotting the courts frequently on flimsy reasons or based on certain individual grievances of any lawyer at no circumstance be appreciated, but the same is to be deprecated.”
The Bench explained that lawyers are essential to the functioning of courts and any disruption in their attendance directly affects justice: “Lawyers are officers of the court. They are stakeholders in the justice delivery system. Their absence will affect the court proceedings. Courts would not be in a position to hear and dispose of the cases in the absence of the lawyers.”
The Court recorded the Supreme Court’s consistent view: “This exactly is the reason why the Honourable Supreme Court of India time and again in numerous judgments reiterated that lawyers have to resolve their grievances by approaching the competent forums or the authorities, than resorting to boycotts.”
The Court recorded that the petitioner had expressed his willingness to submit a specific complaint against the lawyers allegedly involved in illegal activities or misconduct to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
It directed that, upon receipt of such a complaint concerning any office bearers of the Bar Association or practicing lawyers, the Bar Council should initiate all appropriate actions as provided under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the relevant Rules, including those framed by the Bar Council of India.
With this liberty granted to the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Jim, Party-in-Person
For the Respondents: Mr. K.R. Laxman; Mr. N. Tamilmani
Case Title: R. Jim v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No.11182 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete
[Read/Download order]
