After a daylong drama, complete with verbal altercations, momentary rejoice and disappointments, things were back to square one for the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association.

The Bar decided to continue with its boycott against Justice Uma Nath Singh after calling off the protest around 2 pm. But, with Chief Justice Tirath Singh Thakur not giving his nod to the Bar’s resolution that Justice Singh, despite being a senior, will never hold court as a senior and only sit with a senior judge, it resumed the boycott at 5 pm.

The resolution is still under consideration. The boycott of Justice Uma Nath Singh’s court — the judge had allegedly insulted an advocate in the open court — will continue till a decision is taken, the Bar has decided.

On Thursday, the Bar had passed a resolution in a Full House that the judge should be transferred from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and that work should be withdrawn from him till the time he is not transferred.

A two-judge panel comprising Justices J S Khehar and Jasbir Singh called the executive committee of the Bar on Friday morning for a meeting to resolve the issue.

“The judges proposed that Justice Uma Nath would sit in a Division Bench presided over by another senior judge and that he would never hold a single-bench court. This will continue so long as he remains in the Punjab and Haryana High Court,” said Rupinder S Khosla, president of the High Court Bar Association.

The executive committee called a Full House 1 pm to discuss the issue with all members of the Bar.

While the decision was approved by most members, a few advocates aired their reservations, reiterating their demand for Justice Singh’s transfer.

Internal conflict of the association came to the fore as the dissenting voices soon took the shape of a strong protest and a meeting was convened in the office of the Bar president to reach a conclusion. Terming the agreement as “going on the backfoot”, a few advocates said the proposal should be rejected altogether. After three hours of heated arguments, a resolution was finally passed, accepting the judges’ decision.

During the meeting with the two judges, the executive committee also pointed out the rude behaviour of various other HC judges. “The two judges assured the committee that judges would be told not to misbehave with lawyers,” said Khosla.

“Since the prospect of recurrence of any such misbehaviour in the future can largely be ruled out in case the proposal of the judges’ committee remains in force and is acted upon consistently and uninterruptedly¿ the Bar accepts the proposal on its part. The association reserves the right to revive the protest in the eventuality of the recurrence of any such misbehaviour in the future,” reads the resolution.