The aforesaid petition has been registered as a suo motu petition in view of the call for abstention of judicial work given by the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association to all districts vide resolution dated 30th September, 2026. The abstention from judicial work as per the resolution is from 1st October, 2026, to all the Bar Associations in the districts of Meghalaya, until the Government of Meghalaya removes the Advocate General from his post.

Registry has placed before us the data of all the districts, including that of the High Court. The said data reveals that the abstention has affected/impacted judicial work and as such, administration of justice. The abstention of lawyers from court work in the High Court and all districts except Baghmara district, has left litigants unrepresented. Rightly so, Baghmara Bar Association has refused to support the call, as joining the call would be contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45.

We applaud their decision and their stand in abiding by the law.

The law with respect to when contempt can be issued by courts when a Bar Association goes on a strike is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal case (supra) has specifically observed and held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or to give a call for strike. The Apex Court has in paragraphs 20, 21 22, 25, 26 and 35 observed as under:

20. Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every Advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that Courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before them and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of Courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Associations expressing want of confidence in judicial officers, it would amount to scandalising the Courts to undermine its authority and thereby the Advocates will have committed contempt of Court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh case that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex-facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer’s duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of Court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Roman Services case, that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call.

21. It must also be remembered that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court. They owe a duty to their client. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt Court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. In the words of Mr. H. M. Seervai, a distinguished jurist: “Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to disc