The Meghalaya High Court has issued contempt notices to bar association office-bearers over a statewide court boycott called to press for the Advocate General Amit Kumar‘s removal, declaring the abstention “completely illegal”. The bench said that the courts cannot be used by lawyers to achieve their objective noting that the protest had disrupted judicial work and left litigants without legal representation.Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H S Thangkhiew were hearing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) registered after the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association called for lawyers to abstain from judicial work across the state. The matter will next be heard on October 13, when the bar association office-bearers and the concerned regulatory bodies are expected to respond to the court’s directions.“The reason given for abstention is ‘abstain from judicial work till the State Government removes the Advocate General’. A reason completely unacceptable. Courts cannot be used by lawyers to achieve their objective i.e., removal of the Advocate General. Courts are not concerned with the same and as such, abstention from work for the said reason, is uncalled for and cannot be countenanced. Strikes/abstention from work on any count much less the present reason given, is, completely illegal,” the court said on October 8.The issue stems from a resolution dated September 30, under which the two associations called on bar associations across Meghalaya’s districts to abstain from judicial work from October 1 until the state government removed the Advocate General. The high court said the protest had affected judicial work at the high court and in the districts, with Baghmara being the exception. Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H . Thangkhiew said courts cannot be used to press for the Advocate General’s removal and it is illegal. (Image enhanced using AI)Expulsion from Bar rollsThe row began after a woman law intern allegedly faced molestation by a senior lawyer on July 28, 2026. A few days later, on August 3, Advocate General Amit Kumar told the Meghalaya High Court that the Bar Association had failed to protect the intern. His remarks triggered a backlash from the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, which objected to what they viewed as sweeping criticism of the legal fraternity.Also Read | ‘They can’t remove me as AG’: Meghalaya Advocate General on expulsion from bar rollsOn August 5, the two associations removed Kumar from their membership rolls and called for his removal as Advocate General. Kumar maintained that while the associations could end his membership, they had no authority to remove him from the constitutional post, which is under the state government’s control. The Supreme Court Bar Association later urged the two bodies to reconsider their decision, arguing that action against Kumar for submissions made in court was unwarranted.Settled law on lawyers’ strikesThe bench said the law governing lawyers’ strikes and court boycotts was settled by the Supreme Court, particularly through its 2003 ruling in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or call for a boycott of courts, including a token strike. An advocate who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend court because a bar association has called for a strike, it said.Story continues below this adThe apex court had also held that courts are not obliged to adjourn cases merely because lawyers are on strike. Instead, courts have a duty to proceed with matters even in the absence of advocates, rather than become party to the disruption.Relying on these principles, the Meghalaya High Court said it was unprofessional and unbecoming of an advocate to refuse to attend court in response to a strike or boycott call. It emphasised that lawyers have duties both towards their clients and towards the smooth functioning of the justice delivery system.The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations that access to speedy justice is part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Uncalled-for strikes by lawyers, the apex court had noted, were among the reasons for delays in the administration of justice.Notices to bar association office-bearersThe high court issued notices under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, to the office-bearers and executive members of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association.Story continues below this adThey have been asked to show cause why criminal contempt action should not be initiated against them for calling for abstention from judicial work in courts across Meghalaya and obstructing the administration of justice. The bench also directed all those named in the notices to remain personally present on October 13, when the matter will be taken up again.It also made clear that if lawyers in other districts did not resume judicial work immediately, it would consider issuing contempt notices to the presidents, secretaries and office-bearers of the respective district bar associations, except the Baghmara Bar Association.The court praised the Baghmara association for refusing to support the abstention, observing that joining the call would have been contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The notices seek explanations from the individuals concerned.Bar councils asked to report on disciplinary actionThe bench said the Bar Council of Meghalaya and the Bar Council of India had a responsibility to take appropriate disciplinary action against lawyers who abstained from judicial work. It impleaded the Bar Council of India as an additional respondent and issued notices to both councils, returnable on October 13.Story continues below this adThe chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya was directed to remain personally present on that date and inform the court about the action taken against the protesting lawyers. Referring to the Supreme Court’s observations that an advocate who stays away from court despite holding a brief may be personally liable for costs, in addition to damages that may be payable to the client for any loss caused by the non-appearance.