Meghalaya High Court issues contempt notices to bar leaders over court boycott

The Meghalaya High Court has launched criminal contempt proceedings against the leaders of two major bar associations after they boycotted courtrooms to demand the removal of the state’s Advocate General, Amit Kumar.

A division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H S Thangkhiew took suo motu cognisance of the strike, describing the lawyers' decision to stop working as "completely unacceptable". The court said the boycott had brought the administration of justice to a halt and left ordinary litigants across the state without any legal representation.

Why the lawyers went on strike

The strike was organised by the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, which directed their members to stop attending court from 1 October.

The associations want the state government to sack Kumar, who is Meghalaya's chief legal officer, over remarks he allegedly made during a high court hearing on 3 August. That hearing dealt with the safety of women lawyers and the protection of a female law intern who was allegedly molested.

But the bench ruled that a dispute over the Advocate General's remarks was no excuse to disrupt the legal system. In its order, the court said that demanding Kumar's removal did not justify a boycott, and warned that lawyers cannot use the courts to pressure the government into meeting their demands.

No legal right to boycott

The judges cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, which established that lawyers have no legal right to strike or boycott court proceedings, even for a single day.

As a result, the court has ordered the office-bearers and executive committee members of both bar associations to appear in person on 13 October to show cause why criminal contempt action should not be initiated against them.

Warnings to other bar associations

The bench also issued a warning to other lawyers in the state, stating that leaders of other district bar associations would face similar contempt notices if they did not return to work immediately. The only group spared was the Baghmara Bar Association, which had refused to participate in the boycott from the start.

To ensure the profession's regulators address the strike, the High Court has made the Bar Council of India a respondent in the case. It has also ordered the chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya to appear in person on 13 October to report on what disciplinary actions are being taken against the lawyers who walked out.