Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court, in a suo motu public interest litigation, has issued show-cause notices for criminal contempt to the office bearers of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association for giving a call for abstention from judicial work in all courts in the State until the Government removes the Advocate General, holding that such abstention obstructs the administration of justice and is completely illegal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew passed the order on 08.10.2026 in PIL No. 21/2026, titled Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. The petition was registered suo motu in view of a resolution dated 30th September, 2026 of the two Bar Associations, calling for abstention from judicial work by all Bar Associations in the districts of Meghalaya from 1st October, 2026, until the Government of Meghalaya removes the Advocate General from his post.
The court noted that data placed by the Registry for all districts and the High Court showed that the abstention had affected judicial work and the administration of justice, leaving litigants unrepresented in the High Court and in all districts except Baghmara. It commended the Baghmara Bar Association for refusing to support the call, as joining it would be contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, applauding its stand in abiding by the law.
Extensively reproducing the Constitution Bench's observations in Harish Uppal, the court noted that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, even a token strike, that courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike, and that protest, where needed, may be only by means such as press statements, banners or arm bands outside court work. It also referred to Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, on speedy justice as part of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 and on the liability for contempt of office bearers who call strikes, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, on an advocate's duty to the client, and Common Cause v. Union of India, which held that abstention from work is a strike in effect, and noted that the Bar Council of India has passed a resolution that abstention from work amounts to professional misconduct.
The court held that the call for abstention had obstructed the administration of justice and would constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and that courts are entitled to initiate contempt proceedings against the office bearers who gave such a call. It observed that the reason given, to abstain from judicial work till the State Government removes the Advocate General, was a reason completely unacceptable, as courts cannot be used by lawyers to achieve such an objective and are not concerned with it.
The court accordingly issued notice under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to the President, Vice Presidents, Secretaries, Treasurer and Executive Members of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, including its President, Mr. K.S. Kynjing, Senior Advocate, and to the President, Vice President, Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, Treasurer and Executive Members of the Shillong Bar Association, including its President, Mr. H.R. Nath, to show cause why action for criminal contempt should not be taken against them. The notice is returnable on 13th October, 2026, and all the alleged contemnors must personally remain present on that date, with notices to be served through the Registrar General.
The court warned that, if judicial work is not resumed forthwith by advocates in the other districts, it would be constrained to issue contempt notices on the next date to the President, Secretary and office bearers of the respective District Bar Associations, except the Baghmara Bar Association, and directed that a copy of the order be circulated to all concerned. Considering that it is the responsibility of the Bar Council of Meghalaya and the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action against lawyers for abstaining from work, the court also impleaded the Bar Council of India as respondent No. 5, issued notice to the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India returnable on 13th October, 2026, and expected the Chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya to personally remain present to inform the court of the action taken against the protesting lawyers. The matter stands over to 13th October, 2026.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: None recorded (suo motu petition).
For the Respondents: Mr. N.D. Chullai, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. A.S. Dey, Senior Government Advocate, and Mrs. S. Laloo, Government Advocate.
Case Title: Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., PIL No. 21/2026 (suo motu)
