Court boycott invites contempt notices for 26 lawyers in Meghalaya

The High Court of Meghalaya has issued contempt notices to 26 bar association office-bearers, observing that their call to boycott judicial work demanding the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar was “completely unacceptable and illegal”.The bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew issued the contempt notices on Thursday (October 8, 2026) under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.Hearing a suo motu PIL (public interest litigation), the bench said lawyers cannot use the courts to achieve their objective, noting that their protest since October 1 disrupted judicial work and left litigants without legal representation. The PIL was registered after the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association asked lawyers across the State to abstain from judicial work.The row between the bar associations and Mr Kumar began after a senior lawyer allegedly molested a woman law intern on July 28. Six days later, Mr Kumar told the High Court that the bar association had failed to protect the intern.The High Court of Meghalaya and Shillong Bar Associations viewed his remarks as a sweeping criticism of the legal fraternity. On August 5, the two bar bodies removed Mr Kumar from their membership rolls and called for his removal as the Advocate General.Mr Kumar said the associations had the authority to end his membership, but not remove him from a constitutional post under the State government’s control.The bench asked the 26 office-bearers and members of the two associations to explain why they should not face criminal contempt for obstructing the administration of justice.Citing data from the Registry, the bench said the protest affected judicial work at the High Court and in the districts, except Baghmara, the headquarters of South Garo Hills district. The Baghmara Bar Association refused to support the call, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India.In the judgment, the apex court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike, even a token strike, or to give a call for a strike.“…the reason given for abstention is ‘abstain from judicial work till the State government removes the Advocate General’. A reason completely unacceptable. Courts cannot be used by lawyers to achieve their objective, i.e., removal of the Advocate General. Courts are not concerned with the same, and as such, abstention from work for the said reason is uncalled for and cannot be countenanced. Strikes/abstention from work on any count, much less the present reason given, is completely illegal,” Chief Justice Dere and Justice Thangkhew said in their order.The High Court further said that if advocates in the districts do not resume judicial work forthwith, it will be constrained to issue contempt notices against the presidents, secretaries and office-bearers of the district bar associations, barring Baghmara Bar Association, on October 13, the next date of hearing. Published - October 10, 2026 03:22 am IST