The Telangana High Court has held that a call for boycott by members of the Bar cannot be used to prevent an advocate from entering court or carrying out professional duties. The court said that even where abstention from work is claimed to be justified for a day, it does not permit intimidation, coercion, obstruction or assault against advocates who choose to attend court.
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty made the observations while dismissing a contempt petition filed by an advocate against office-bearers of the Metropolitan Criminal Court Bar Association, Nampally.
The petitioner alleged that he was stopped and assaulted after refusing to participate in a one-day boycott called by the Bar Association on June 16, 2025.
Advocate Alleged Assault After Refusing Boycott
According to the petitioner, he was prevented from entering the court premises and was asked by the General Secretary of the association to remove his advocate’s band and leave.
He further alleged that he was slapped and assaulted, causing him to fall down the stairs and suffer injuries to his head and forehead.
The allegations were disputed by the respondents and had already resulted in criminal proceedings.
No Advocate Can Be Forced to Join Boycott
The High Court reiterated that advocates do not have a general right to strike or boycott court proceedings.
It said an advocate cannot be compelled to abstain from court work merely because a Bar Association has decided to call a boycott. An advocate who chooses to appear before a court cannot be subjected to threats, coercion or adverse consequences for doing so.
The court observed that even where a boycott or protest is undertaken in circumstances claimed to be exceptional, advocates, litigants and others cannot be intimidated or obstructed for choosing to attend court or pursue a legal remedy.
Limited Exception Does Not Permit Coercion
Referring to Supreme Court principles governing strikes and boycotts by lawyers, the High Court noted that abstention from court work may be permissible only in the rarest of rare situations concerning the dignity, integrity or independence of the Bar or the Bench.
Even in such cases, the abstention cannot extend beyond one day, and the Bar president must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge, as applicable. The decision of the concerned judicial authority has to be followed.
In the present case, the High Court noted that the boycott resolution had been passed as an expression of solidarity and to condemn attacks on advocates.
The court observed that expressing solidarity over an alleged attack on an advocate could not, by itself, be treated as an act aimed at interfering with the administration of justice. It also recognised that the safety and dignity of advocates are connected with the independence and effective functioning of the Bar.
However, the court found that no material had been placed before it to show that the Bar president had consulted the concerned Metropolitan Sessions Judge before the resolution was passed.
It clarified that even if the circumstances could come within the limited exception allowing one-day abstention, such an exception would extend only to abstention from court work. It would not protect threats, intimidation, obstruction or physical assault against an advocate who decides to attend court.
The court specifically noted that the conduct attributed to respondent number 5, if ultimately established, would fall outside the protection of any such exception.
Contempt Liability Cannot Be Imposed Collectively
Despite its observations on the legality of boycotts and the rights of advocates who continue to attend court, the High Court declined to proceed further with the contempt case.
It noted that the petition substantially sought action against the office-bearers of the association collectively.
The court held that contempt proceedings ordinarily cannot be maintained against a group of respondents without specific allegations and material showing the individual role of each person.
Except in relation to respondent number 5, the court found that the material did not disclose a specific act attributable to each respondent. It also held that contempt liability could not arise merely because a person held an office in the Bar Association.
Parallel Adjudication of Disputed Assault Allegations Declined
The High Court further took note of the conflicting versions presented by the parties and the fact that criminal proceedings had already been initiated in relation to the alleged incident.
It said that a contempt court should not undertake a parallel determination of disputed factual allegations, particularly where the alleged physical assault had been specifically attributed to respondent number 5 rather than to all the office-bearers collectively.
The court also noted that the petitioner was ultimately able to enter the court premises on the same day and attend the matter before the magistrate.
It further observed that the available material did not show that other advocates who attended court despite the boycott call had been similarly subjected to assault, intimidation or coercive conduct by the office-bearers.
Contempt Case Dismissed With Caution to Bar Office-Bearers
The High Court dismissed the contempt proceedings but clarified that its decision should not be read as approving or legitimising any assault, intimidation, coercion or obstruction against an advocate who wishes to attend court despite a boycott call.
The court directed Bar office-bearers to exercise due care, restraint and responsibility while organising or participating in protests or boycotts.
It added that any future call for a strike or boycott must conform to the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and must not prevent access to courts or interfere with the administration of justice.
