Patna High Court Bar-Bench Friction: Lawyers Call and Withdraw Court Boycott Over Alleged Judicial Misconduct

A serious bar-bench confrontation erupted at the Patna High Court in May 2026 when the Coordination Committee of three bar associations called for a boycott of court proceedings beginning May 15. The boycott was triggered by allegations of abusive and demeaning conduct by certain judges towards lawyers appearing before them. The situation escalated rapidly, with lawyers describing the judicial conduct as "uncharitable, uncouth, and abusive." The Bar Council of India intervened to mediate the dispute, and the boycott was eventually recalled on May 9, 2026, after assurances were provided. This incident has reignited the national debate about the appropriate boundaries of judicial conduct and the rights of advocates in courtrooms.

What Triggered the Patna High Court Lawyers Boycott

The boycott was called by the Coordination Committee comprising representatives of the Patna High Court Advocates Association, the High Court Bar Association, and the Advocates Association of Patna. According to the Committee's resolution, several advocates had complained of being subjected to harsh, humiliating, and abusive language by judges during court proceedings. The complaints alleged that lawyers were being interrupted mid-argument, spoken to in a dismissive manner, and in some instances, threatened with contempt proceedings for raising legitimate legal objections. The Committee stated that repeated representations to the High Court administration had gone unaddressed, leaving the bar with no option but to resort to a boycott. The initial boycott notice announced an indefinite abstention from court work starting May 15, affecting both the High Court and subordinate courts across Bihar.

BCI Intervention and Resolution of the Boycott

The Bar Council of India, which is the statutory body regulating the legal profession under the Advocates Act, 1961, intervened swiftly once the boycott notice gained attention. BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and other senior office-bearers engaged with both the bar leaders and the High Court administration to find a resolution. The BCI has historically taken the position that while boycotts disrupt the administration of justice and harm litigants, the underlying grievances of lawyers must be addressed through institutional mechanisms. After negotiations, the Coordination Committee recalled the boycott on May 9, reportedly after receiving assurances that the concerns raised would be examined and that appropriate steps would be taken to ensure courteous treatment of advocates. The BCI also reportedly reminded the bar that under its 2003 resolution and subsequent Supreme Court directions, boycotts of courts are considered professional misconduct under the rules framed under the Advocates Act.

Legal Position on Court Boycotts by Lawyers in India

The legality of court boycotts by lawyers has been settled by the Supreme Court in several decisions. In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (1999), the Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott courts, as such actions adversely affect the fundamental right of litigants to access justice. The Court reiterated this position in Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003), directing that lawyers who go on strike or boycott can be held liable for professional misconduct. The Court observed that the right to protest cannot extend to paralysing the judicial system and that any grievance of the bar against the bench should be resolved through dialogue, representations to the Chief Justice, or complaints to the in-house mechanism established by the judiciary. Despite these clear pronouncements, boycotts continue to occur across India, particularly at the district court level, reflecting a gap between the legal position and ground reality.

Judicial Conduct and the Bangalore Principles

The Patna incident also raises important questions about standards of judicial conduct. India's Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, requires judges to maintain dignity and decorum in court, treat all persons before them with courtesy, and refrain from any conduct that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, endorsed by the United Nations in 2003 and widely followed in India, similarly emphasise propriety and courtesy as core values. While judges must maintain order in court and can exercise reasonable control over proceedings, using abusive or demeaning language towards advocates crosses the line. The Supreme Court itself, in several instances, has observed that judges must exercise restraint and that harsh words from the bench can have a chilling effect on the willingness of advocates to argue fearlessly. The in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 provides a mechanism for addressing complaints against judges, though its effectiveness has been debated.

Key Takeaways

The Patna High Court bar-bench friction underscores the delicate balance that must be maintained between judicial authority and the dignity of advocates. While lawyers do not have a legal right to boycott courts, the underlying grievances that lead to such actions deserve institutional attention. The BCI's intervention in this case was timely and helped prevent a prolonged disruption to the administration of justice in Bihar. For the legal community, the incident serves as a reminder that both the bar and the bench have mutual obligations: judges must treat advocates with courtesy and allow them to argue without intimidation, while lawyers must respect the authority of the court and use institutional grievance mechanisms rather than boycotts. The effectiveness of existing mechanisms for addressing complaints about judicial conduct remains an important area for reform, particularly the strengthening of the in-house procedure and the long-pending Judicial Accountability Bill.