Week-Long Boycott of Gomati District Judge’s Court Proceedings Continues, Lack of Intervention Raises Questions
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, October 8, 2026
A week after members of the Gomati District Bar Association reportedly began boycotting the court proceedings of Gomati District and Sessions Judge Ravi Dahiya at Udaipur, there has reportedly been no visible intervention from either the State Government or the higher judicial authorities to address the concerns raised by the advocates.
The continuing boycott has brought renewed attention to a written complaint submitted by members of the Gomati District Bar Association to the Chief Justice and another Judge of the High Court of Tripura, through the Registrar General. The complaint, signed by 54 advocates, alleges judicial misconduct and seeks an appropriate inquiry and action against Judge Ravi Dahiya.
According to the complaint, the advocates had earlier met Justice S. Datta Purkayastha of the High Court of Tripura on December 12, 2025, and apprised him of their grievances, seeking an immediate remedy. The lawyers stated that, despite their earlier representation, they had not experienced any improvement and subsequently decided to place their allegations formally before the Chief Justice.
The complaint contains a series of allegations concerning the functioning of the Gomati District judiciary. The advocates alleged that the District and Sessions Judge does not consistently follow prescribed court working hours and, on occasions, arrives late and continues court proceedings until as late as 9 pm or 10 pm, resulting in lawyers, litigants, witnesses and accused persons having to remain at the court premises for extended periods.
The lawyers have also raised concerns regarding the recording of evidence. The complaint alleges that, in cases involving witnesses speaking Bengali or Kokborok, the judge sometimes relies on the court Peskar to examine or interpret the testimony and dictate it for recording, rather than personally examining the witnesses. The advocates have alleged that this practice could result in errors in the recording of depositions.
Another allegation concerns the timing of judgments. The Bar Association members claimed that judgments are sometimes pronounced beyond normal court hours and after dusk, requiring accused persons and lawyers to remain at the court premises for longer periods. They have also alleged that, in certain cases, applications seeking representation of accused persons through lawyers because of illness have not been accepted, despite medical documents being produced.
The most serious allegations in the representation relate to the judge's alleged conduct towards members of the legal profession. The advocates have alleged that lawyers are sometimes rebuked and subjected to insulting or defamatory remarks in open court in the presence of litigants. The complaint further alleges that such remarks affect the dignity of advocates and may undermine the relationship between the Bar and the Bench.
The complaint also contains allegations concerning the treatment of women advocates. The signatories have described certain alleged remarks and behaviour towards women lawyers as objectionable and unbecoming, including an allegation that women lawyers were questioned about their presence in court instead of being engaged in household work. These are allegations made in the representation and have not been independently established in the document.
The lawyers further alleged that differences developed between the judge and office-bearers of the Bar Association following a disagreement over the introduction of summer vacation for subordinate courts. According to the complaint, the Bar Association did not support such a proposal, after which the advocates alleged that the judge's relationship with the association's President and Secretary deteriorated.
On the basis of these allegations, the advocates requested the High Court to conduct a necessary inquiry and take appropriate action against Judge Ravi Dahiya. They also requested his transfer from Udaipur and the posting of another competent judicial officer as District and Sessions Judge of Gomati District. The representation was signed at the Udaipur court premises on June 6, 2026.
Against this background, the reported week-long boycott of the judge's court proceedings has brought the dispute back into public focus. The principal concern being raised by members of the Bar is not merely the boycott itself, but the absence of any publicly known resolution to the grievances that have been formally placed before the judicial authorities.
The situation also raises questions about how prolonged disputes between the Bar and Bench are being addressed and whether an institutional mechanism will be initiated to examine the allegations and restore normal functioning at the Gomati District Court.
more news...