मेघालय उच्च न्यायालय ने वकीलों के बहिष्कार पर आपराधिक अवमानना नोटिस जारी किए

Meghalaya High Court issues criminal contempt notices over lawyers’ boycott

The Meghalaya High Court has issued criminal contempt notices to bar office-bearers over the lawyers’ boycott demanding Advocate General Amit Kumar’s removal. The bench said the abstention disrupted justice, affected litigants and could invite further action.

- Bench said strike disrupted justice and left litigants without representation statewide

- Shillong and High Court bar office-bearers must appear personally on October 13

- Lawyers began abstaining from work on October 1 seeking Amit Kumar’s removal

The Meghalaya High Court has issued criminal contempt notices to office-bearers and executive members of two bar associations over their decision to boycott judicial proceedings, demanding the removal of state Advocate General Amit Kumar.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H S Thangkhiew took suo motu cognisance of the matter on Thursday, observing that the strike had disrupted the administration of justice and left litigants without legal representation in courts across the state, except in Baghmara.

The court directed the office-bearers and executive members of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. They have been asked to appear in person before the court on October 13.

The two associations had called for lawyers to abstain from judicial work from October 1 until the state government removed Kumar from office. The demand followed remarks allegedly made by the Advocate General during High Court proceedings on August 3 concerning the safety of women lawyers and the protection of a woman law intern who was allegedly molested.

The High Court held that seeking the Advocate General’s removal did not justify a boycott of court proceedings. It said courts could not be used by lawyers to pursue such demands at the cost of litigants.

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 boycott judicial proceedings, even as a symbolic protest.

The court also warned that office-bearers of other district bar associations could face contempt notices if lawyers did not immediately resume judicial work. The Baghmara Bar Association was excluded from the warning after it declined to support the boycott.

Additionally, the court impleaded the Bar Council of India as a respondent in the matter and directed the chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya to appear personally on October 13. The chairman has been asked to inform the court about the action taken against lawyers involved in the abstention from work.

Copyright©2026 Living Media India Limited. For reprint rights: Syndications Today

Powered by Nyaya 247 News