Meghalaya High Court issues contempt notices to bar leaders over statewide court boycott that disrupted judicial work

The High Court registered a suo motu petition after the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association called on advocates across Meghalaya to abstain from judicial work from 1 October 2026 until the State Government removed the Advocate General

Registry data indicated that the abstention had affected judicial work and left litigants unrepresented in the High Court and all districts except Baghmara, whose Bar Association did not join the call.

The Court considered the legality of the abstention and whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the office-bearers who had called for it.

Whether the Bar Associations’ call for advocates to abstain from judicial work, and the resulting disruption of court proceedings, could constitute criminal contempt of court

Whether show-cause notices for criminal contempt should issue to the office-bearers and executive members who called for the abstention, and whether the Bar Councils should be required to respond and take disciplinary action

Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, conduct that obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice may constitute criminal contempt; Section 15 provides for cognizance, and Article 215 of the Constitution recognizes the High Court’s power as a court of record to punish for contempt.

In Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, the Supreme Court held that lawyers have no right to strike or call for a boycott, that courts should continue with their work, and that advocates holding briefs must attend court; the Court also recognized only a narrowly confined exception for a protest abstention of no more than one day in rare cases involving the dignity, integrity, or independence of the Bar or Bench.

Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2018) 17 SCC 27, linked access to speedy justice with Articles 14 and 21 and observed that uncalled-for lawyers’ strikes contribute to delay and may attract contempt consequences for those who call them.

The Court also relied on Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekhar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 556, concerning an advocate’s duty to protect the client’s interests, and Common Cause, a registered society v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 304, treating abstention, boycott, or token strike as illegal in effect.

Applying those authorities, the Court considered the abstention’s stated purpose—pressuring the State Government to remove the Advocate General—to be unacceptable and unrelated to the narrow exception recognized in Harish Uppal.

The reported disruption of judicial work and the resulting lack of representation for litigants supported the Court’s view that the call obstructed the administration of justice and could amount to criminal contempt.

The Court therefore issued show-cause notices; it did not make a final finding of contempt at this stage.

It issued notices under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 to named office-bearers and executive members of the two Bar Associations, directing them to show cause why criminal contempt action should not be taken and to appear personally on 13 October 2026.

It also impleaded the Bar Council of India, issued notices to the Meghalaya State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India, and directed the Chairman of the Meghalaya State Bar Council to appear and inform the Court of action taken.

The Court warned that it might issue notices to office-bearers of other district Bar Associations if judicial work was not promptly resumed, excluding Baghmara.