New Delhi, India  
Judiciary

Meghalaya HC Disposes Of Bar Bodies’ Plea After Drop Box, Online Portal Set Up For Harassment Complaints

By Saket Sourav      03 September, 2026 06:14 PM      0 Comments
Meghalaya HC Disposes Of Bar Bodies Plea After Drop Box Online Portal Set Up For Harassment Complaints

Shillong: The High Court of Meghalaya has disposed of a writ petition filed by the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association, after being satisfied that the State machinery and the Bar Council of Meghalaya had taken adequate steps both to investigate an assault on an advocate and to institutionalise mechanisms for addressing complaints of sexual harassment within the legal fraternity.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh was hearing a petition triggered by a representation dated 29th July 2026, in which the Bar Associations had highlighted that an advocate was apprehended by non-State actors from his professional chamber at Keating Road, Shillong, and thereafter physically assaulted and paraded to the Sadar Police Station, without any FIR initially being registered against the assailants. The petitioners’ grievance was that private individuals had taken the law into their own hands while the police had abdicated its duty to intervene.

Appearing for the petitioners, Counsel had relied on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India [(2018) 9 SCC 501], which mandate preventive, remedial and punitive measures by State Governments against vigilante violence, to argue that the conduct of the non-State actors could not be countenanced. During the pendency of the petition, the Advocate General assured the Court that appropriate steps would be taken, and an FIR was in fact registered against the assailants during the course of the hearing, with the investigation stated to be ongoing towards its logical conclusion.

Separately, the petition also drew attention to a pending complaint of sexual harassment against an advocate, in the course of which the Bar Council of Meghalaya had, on 3rd August 2026, assured the Court that a mandatory drop box facility would be set up in all Bar Associations and at its own office to enable such grievances to be raised by women advocates and interns. Affidavits placed on record showed that the Bar Council of Meghalaya, at its meeting held on 31st July 2026, had directed all Bar Associations in the State to comply, that the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association had adopted these resolutions at its executive meeting on 10th August 2026, and that the Bar Council itself had since set up a physical drop box and an online complaint portal on its website, with most Bar Associations reported to have complied. The Court also noted that the Shillong Bar Association had suspended the advocate against whom the harassment complaint was made, and that the complaint was registered as a DC Enquiry to be dealt with under the Bar Council of India Rules.

Recording that the Bar Council of Meghalaya had taken “positive and adequate steps” to address such grievances going forward, and that the investigation into the assault on the advocate was underway, the Court held that nothing further survived for consideration and disposed of the petition.

Case Title: High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association & Anr. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., WP(C) No. 350/2026



Share this article:

About:

Saket is a law graduate from The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. He has a keen ...Read more

Follow:
Linkedin


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Plea for the Status of Hindus, Niam Khasi, Niam Tynrai, and Songsarek to be heard by Meghalaya High Court Plea for the Status of Hindus, Niam Khasi, Niam Tynrai, and Songsarek to be heard by Meghalaya High Court

It also mentioned the poor facility of the state in endeavoring to eliminate inequality in status, facility, and opportunity under Article 38(2) of the Constitution. As per the latest update, the highest Court has dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach the equivalent Court. Status of Hindus, Niam Khasi, Niam Tynrai, Songsarek, Meghalaya High Court

Rubbing Male Organ On Vagina Or Urethra Over Victim's Underpants Amounts To Rape: Meghalaya High Court Rubbing Male Organ On Vagina Or Urethra Over Victim's Underpants Amounts To Rape: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court upheld a rape conviction under Section 375(b) IPC, ruling that even partial penetration qualifies as rape. The case involved a minor victim who alleged the accused rubbed his genitalia against her underwear.

Bread And Rusk Are Different, Vat Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court Bread And Rusk Are Different, Vat Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court ruled that rusk, being distinct from bread due to additional manufacturing processes, does not qualify for the VAT exemption granted to bread.

Meghalaya High Court Suggests Army To Conduct Surprise Checks On Its Vehicles To Prevent Possible Drug Trafficking Meghalaya High Court Suggests Army To Conduct Surprise Checks On Its Vehicles To Prevent Possible Drug Trafficking

The Meghalaya High Court, in M Kharkongor vs. State of Meghalaya March 30, 2022, addressed allegations of drug trafficking using Army vehicles.

New Release

Senior Citizens Rights Handbook

The Senior Citizen Rights Handbook is a comprehensive guide designed to empower elderly citizens with clear and accessible knowledge of their legal and social rights in India.

Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email