Serious allegations of drinking during office hours and misconduct rock West Tripura Consumer Tribunal as lawyers protest against its president Gautam Sarkar, demanding immediate removal and inquiry amid concerns over judicial integrity and consumer justice.
Serious allegations have shaken the West Tripura District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission after members of the legal fraternity accused its president, Gautam Sarkar, of gross misconduct, including attending hearings under the influence of alcohol and misbehaving with lawyers as well as office staff. The controversy has triggered widespread protests by advocates and raised serious questions about the integrity, dignity, and functioning of a key quasi-judicial institution meant to protect consumer rights.
Gautam Sarkar, a retired judicial officer currently serving as the president of the West Tripura Consumer Tribunal, has been accused by members of the Bar Association of routinely carrying liquor bottles in his bag and consuming alcohol during office hours. According to several advocates, the alleged behavior was not an isolated incident but a repeated pattern observed over a significant period.
Lawyers claimed that during hearings, they often noticed the smell of alcohol emanating from the presiding officer. Some alleged that Sarkar frequently used abusive and unparliamentary language while addressing advocates, litigants, and staff, creating an atmosphere of fear and humiliation within the tribunal premises. The allegations have deeply disturbed the legal community, as consumer tribunals are expected to function with the highest standards of judicial propriety and public trust.
A particularly serious allegation was raised by a woman advocate, who reportedly lodged a written complaint accusing Sarkar of using abusive language and physically assaulting her. Despite the gravity of the accusation, lawyers alleged that no concrete action has been taken so far by the concerned authorities. The absence of an official response has further fueled resentment among advocates, who believe that the matter is being ignored despite repeated complaints.
An advocate associated with the Bar Association stated that concerns extended beyond inappropriate conduct to issues of moral turpitude. “Even during hearings, we often sensed alcohol. This is not just about misbehavior; it is about the sanctity of a judicial institution,” the advocate said. Lawyers emphasized that such conduct, if proven, undermines public confidence in the consumer justice system and compromises the rights of litigants seeking redress.
Office staff of the Consumer Tribunal have also come forward with allegations of intimidation and harassment. Several employees claimed that Sarkar frequently shouted at staff members and used abusive language, creating a hostile work environment. One staff member alleged that colleagues felt unsafe when Sarkar consumed alcohol inside his official chamber, adding that the behavior affected both mental well-being and professional efficiency.
In response to the mounting allegations, the Bar Association of West Tripura has launched a collective protest against Sarkar and demanded his immediate removal from the post of tribunal president. Advocates announced that they would abstain from participating in tribunal proceedings until decisive action is taken. “Alcohol is consumed in his chamber. Unless he is removed, we will not participate in hearings,” an advocate said, reflecting the unified stand of the legal community.
The protest has effectively disrupted the functioning of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, potentially affecting hundreds of consumers who depend on the tribunal for speedy and affordable justice. Legal experts have warned that prolonged disruption could lead to case backlogs and further erode faith in consumer protection mechanisms.
Responding to the allegations, Gautam Sarkar categorically denied all charges, describing them as false, baseless, and motivated. He claimed that he was being collectively harassed by lawyers and staff members without any valid reason. “I am not a mad person. I do not know why the office staff are making such statements,” Sarkar said while rejecting the accusations.
He also cited his medical history, stating that he had undergone bypass surgery and cancer surgery on his neck. Sarkar suggested that his health condition may have been misinterpreted or used against him unfairly. However, his explanation has failed to convince protesting advocates, who continue to demand an independent inquiry and immediate administrative intervention.
| Also Read: Rs 3.20 crore IGDC Fund boosts green livelihoods in Tripura |
As of now, no official statement has been issued by the state government, the consumer affairs department, or higher judicial authorities regarding the allegations or the demand for Sarkar’s removal. The silence of the authorities has intensified calls for transparency and accountability, with lawyers insisting that an impartial probe is essential to uphold the credibility of the justice delivery system.
The unfolding controversy has highlighted broader concerns about oversight, accountability, and grievance redressal mechanisms within quasi-judicial bodies. Legal observers argue that swift and fair action is necessary not only to address the present allegations but also to restore confidence among consumers, advocates, and staff who rely on these institutions for justice.
