Meghalaya High Court: Amicus Curiae Cannot Join Bar Strike, Must Assist Court

Shillong, October 6, 2026 – The Meghalaya High Court on Tuesday issued a stern warning to an advocate appointed as amicus curiae, holding that the duty to assist the court overrides any call by the Bar to strike. The division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh expressed its displeasure over the non-appearance of Advocate Philemon Nongbri, who had been appointed to assist in a suo motu public interest litigation.

A Friend of the Court, Not a Strikebreaker

The court was hearing a PIL initiated after incidents that occurred during a rally organized by the Khasi Students Union in Shillong on August 19. On September 7, the bench had appointed Advocate Nongbri as amicus curiae to assist in the proceedings. However, when the matter was called on October 6, the amicus did not appear.

“We are extremely pained and disturbed by the fact, that despite Mr. Nongbri, a very competent member of the Bar, having being appointed as an Amicus to assist this Court has not appeared, presumably, because of the call by the Advocates to go on strike for removal of the Advocate General,” the court observed.

The court drew a clear line: an amicus curiae is not a counsel for a party but an officer of the court. “The role of an Amicus is his loyalty to justice and not to the Bar Association. Amicus Curiae is a friend of the Court, not member of Bar on strike. Once appointed, he is duty bound to assist and the call of Bar to strike, does not apply to him.”

Warning of Contempt

The bench went on to note that the non-appearance could be viewed “through the lens of contempt and misconduct.” It warned that in future it may be “constrained to take appropriate action against the lawyers for failing to appear in cases where they have been appointed as Amicus.”

The court relieved Advocate Nongbri from his role and appointed Senior Advocate K. Paul as the new amicus. The registry was directed to provide all case papers to Mr. Paul within the day to allow him to prepare. The matter has been adjourned to October 9.

Implications for the Legal Profession

This order sends a clear message that the independence of the court’s process cannot be compromised by collective actions of the Bar. The judgment reinforces the principle that an amicus curiae owes a duty to the court first, and must assist in the administration of justice regardless of external pressures. Legal observers see this as a significant affirmation of the court’s inherent powers to secure the assistance of lawyers in public interest matters.