The Meghalaya High Court on Thursday issued contempt notices to 26 office-bearers and executive members of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association, holding that their call for a statewide abstention from judicial work to demand the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar was “completely illegal” and amounted to criminal contempt.

A division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew registered a suo motu public interest litigation after the two bar associations passed a resolution on September 30 calling for abstention from October 1 until the Advocate General was removed. The court noted that the abstention had affected judicial work across the state, leaving litigants unrepresented, except in Baghmara district where the bar association refused to join the protest. The court applauded Baghmara for abiding by the law.

Suo Motu PIL Over Strike

The registry placed before the court data showing that the abstention had impacted judicial work in the High Court and all districts except Baghmara. The court observed that the call for abstention had left litigants without representation, directly obstructing the administration of justice. The bench noted that the Baghmara Bar Association had refused to support the call, stating that joining would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India .

The court expressed strong disapproval of the strike, noting that it was not a legitimate form of protest. The bench said that the reason cited for the abstention—remaining away from judicial work until the state government removed the Advocate General—was “completely unacceptable”. It added that courts cannot be used by lawyers to achieve their objectives, and that abstention from work for such a reason was “uncalled for and cannot be countenanced”.

Legal Framework: No Right to Strike

The court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal , which held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even a token strike. The bench quoted the judgment, noting 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”.

The court also cited Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh , where the Supreme Court observed that uncalled-for strikes by lawyers are one of the root causes of delay in the administration of justice and that such strikes, being in violation of the law laid down by the apex court, amount to contempt. The bench noted that at least the office-bearers who gave the call for the strike cannot disown their liability for contempt.

In Common Cause v. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that abstention from work, whether called a boycott, protest, or token strike, is a strike in effect and is illegal. The Meghalaya High Court reiterated that if any bar association goes on strike, the state bar council and the Bar Council of India must take disciplinary action.

Court Rejects Reason for Abstention

The court observed that the abstention had obstructed the administration of justice and would constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The bench stated: “Strikes/abstention from work on any count much less the present reason given, is, completely illegal.” It emphasised that lawyers owe a duty to their clients and to the court, and that strikes interfere with the smooth functioning of the judicial system.

The dispute originated from an incident in July where a senior lawyer allegedly molested a law intern. During a hearing on August 3, Advocate General Amit Kumar criticised the bar associations for failing to protect the intern. In response, the bar associations removed him from their membership rolls and called for his removal as Advocate General. The court noted that the call for abstention was to press for this demand, and rejected it as an impermissible use of court boycott.

Contempt Notices and Directions

The court issued notices under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India to the office-bearers and executive members of both bar associations, asking them to show cause why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. The contemnors include the President, Vice Presidents, Secretary General, Secretaries, Treasurer, and Executive Members of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, and the President, Vice President, Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, Treasurer, and Executive Members of the Shillong Bar Association.

The matter has been made returnable on October 13, with all contemnors directed to appear personally before the court. The court warned that if judicial work is not resumed in other districts forthwith, it will be constrained to issue contempt notices against the presidents, secretaries, and office-bearers of the respective district bar associations, excluding the Baghmara Bar Association.

The court also impleaded the Bar Council of India as a party respondent and issued notices to the State Bar Council of Meghalaya. It directed the Chairman of the State Bar Council to appear personally on October 13 and inform the court about the action taken against the protesting lawyers who called for the abstention.

The court’s order makes it clear that the abstention from judicial work must cease immediately, and that the legal profession must abide by the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The case is now listed for further hearing on October 13, 2026.