Full Breakdown
Meghalaya High Court Issues Contempt Notices Over Lawyers' Boycott
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
A division bench of the Meghalaya High Court—Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H S Thangkhiew—issued criminal contempt notices to the office-bearers of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association. The notices respond to the associations’ call for a statewide judicial work boycott that began on October 1, demanding the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar. The bench directed the named officials to appear in person on October 13 to show cause why contempt action should not be initiated.
Background & Context
The dispute originated after a woman law intern alleged molestation by a senior lawyer on July 28, 2026. Advocate General Amit Kumar made remarks in the High Court on August 3 concerning the safety of women lawyers and the protection of the intern, which the two bar associations criticised as a sweeping attack on the legal profession. On September 30 the associations passed a resolution calling for abstention from judicial work starting October 1 until the state government removed Kumar. On August 5 the associations removed Kumar from their membership rolls and formally demanded his removal as Advocate General.
Legal Basis and Court Reasoning
The bench relied on the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in *Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India*, which held that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts, even in a token form. The court described the boycott as “completely illegal,” noting that it disrupted the administration of justice and left litigants unrepresented across the state, except in the Baghmara district, whose bar association declined to join the protest. The court warned that further contempt notices could be issued to presidents, secretaries and office-bearers of other district bar associations if the boycott continued.
Official Responses
Chief Justice Dere and Justice Thangkhiew ordered the two associations to explain why contempt proceedings should not proceed and impleaded the Bar Council of Meghalaya and the Bar Council of India as respondents, directing both councils to report any disciplinary action taken against the protesting lawyers. The Baghmara Bar Association was praised for its refusal to support the abstention.
Impact and Next Steps
The contempt notices require the named office-bearers to appear on October 13. Should lawyers in additional districts fail to resume work, the court indicated it would consider contempt notices against their leaders. The episode reinforces the judiciary’s position that access to speedy justice is a constitutional right and that professional grievances must not impede the functioning of the justice delivery system.