Frequent Boycott Of Courts By Lawyers On Flimsy Reasons Not Appreciated, A Concern To Judiciary: Madras High Court

“Thus, 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. Only in the event of any common cause, the lawyer has to approach the Bar Council or the competent authorities for the purpose of redressal of their grievance. Contrarily, they are not expected to resort to boycott unnecessarily, thereby obstructing the court proceedings,” the court said.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that the Supreme Court has also deprecated frequent court boycott by lawyers and had reiterated that the lawyers should resolve their grievances by approaching competent authorities. The bench observed that lawyers were stakeholders in the justice delivery system and their absence would affect court proceedings. The court also added that boycott by lawyers was a concern to judiciary and in such cases, the court would not be in a position to dispose of the cases.

“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. Their assistance to the court is of paramount importance in the justice delivery system,” the court noted.

The court was hearing a petition filed by R Jim, seeking directions to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take disciplinary action against erring officers of the Tirunelveli Bar Association. He had argued that boycotts announced by the Bar Association had caused inconvenience to the public and to other lawyers who were willing to appear before the court.

The court however noted that Jim could not establish who were the office bearers who were illegally and irregularly involved in the affairs of the Bar Association. The court added that in the absence of any specific complaint regarding misconduct or illegality committed by office bearers, the Bar Council would not be in a position to initiate action.

The petitioner then informed the court that he would give a specific complaint against the lawyers who were indulged in the illegal activities. The court asked the Bar Council to initiate all appropriate action as per the Advocates Act on receiving the complaint.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Jim Party-in-Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K. R. Laxman, Mr. N. Tamilmani

Case Title: R Jim v. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 205