'Work Boycotts by Lawyers Not a Proper Solution, Pose Serious Concern to Judiciary': Madras High Court

In a strong message to the legal fraternity, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has come down heavily on the growing trend of lawyers boycotting court proceedings for “flimsy reasons”, warning that such actions not only undermine the judicial process but also cause serious hardship to litigants awaiting justice.

The bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete made these observations while disposing of a writ petition filed by advocate R. Jim, who sought disciplinary action against certain office bearers of the Tirunelveli Bar Association. The petitioner, appearing in person, claimed that the Bar Association had been frequently calling for court boycotts without substantial cause, disrupting judicial work and obstructing access to justice.

While the court refused to direct disciplinary proceedings due to the lack of specific names or concrete allegations, it did grant the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh complaint naming individual lawyers allegedly involved in such acts. Court also asked the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to act on any such specific complaint and take appropriate disciplinary steps in line with the Advocates Act, 1961.

However, court did not mince words in its sharp criticism of the strike culture among lawyers. “Boycotts may not be a proper solution. Legal profession is a noble profession. Lawyers are not employees or workmen. They are professionals and bound to protect the interest of litigants and the majesty of the courts,” the bench observed.

The order underlined that lawyers are vital stakeholders in the justice delivery system and that courts cannot function effectively without their active assistance. “Their absence will affect court proceedings. Courts would not be in a position to hear and dispose of the cases in the absence of lawyers,” the judges stated.

Citing multiple rulings by the Supreme Court, the bench reiterated that grievances, if any, should be taken up with the appropriate forums like Bar Councils and not through disruptive boycotts. “Only in the event of any common cause, the lawyer has to approach the Bar Council or the competent authorities for redressal. ', they are not expected to resort to boycott unnecessarily, thereby obstructing court proceedings,” the order stated.

Case Title:  R.Jim vs. The Secretary Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pudhucherry High Court Campus and Others

Download judgment here