मेघालय हाईकोर्ट ने वकीलों के कोर्ट बहिष्कार पर आपराधिक अपमान नोटिस जारी किए

Meghalaya High Court issues contempt notices over bar bodies' court boycott

The Meghalaya High Court has issued criminal contempt notices to bar association office-bearers over a court boycott seeking Advocate General Amit Kumar's removal. The bench said the abstention disrupted justice delivery and could not be used to pressure the government.

The Meghalaya High Court has issued criminal contempt notices to office-bearers and executive members of two bar associations over what it called a "completely unacceptable" call for a boycott of judicial work to press for the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar. The court said the abstention had disrupted the administration of justice and left litigants unrepresented in courts, except in Baghmara.

A division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H S Thangkhiew took suo motu cognisance of the matter on Thursday. It asked members of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association to show cause why criminal contempt action should not be initiated against them, and directed them to appear in person before the court on October 13.

The two associations had called for lawyers to abstain from work from October 1 until the government removed Kumar, the state’s chief legal officer. The demand followed remarks allegedly made by him during High Court proceedings on August 3 on the safety of women lawyers and the protection of a woman law intern who was allegedly molested.

According to the High Court, the demand for the advocate general’s removal could not justify abstaining from judicial work. The bench said courts could not be used by lawyers to achieve such objectives. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India, the bench reiterated that lawyers have no right to strike or call for a boycott of court proceedings, including token strikes.

The court also warned that contempt notices could be issued to office-bearers of other district bar associations if lawyers did not resume judicial work immediately, while excluding the Baghmara Bar Association, which had declined to support the boycott. It also made the Bar Council of India a respondent and directed the chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya to appear in person on October 13 and inform the court about the action taken against lawyers involved in the abstention. The proceedings centre on the court’s view that the boycott affected the functioning of courts and access to legal representation.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News