Meghalaya High Court Issues Criminal Contempt Notice: courts “cannot be used by lawyers to achieve their objective” of removing the Advocate General, the Bench said. Office-bearers of two bar associations must show cause on October 13, and no finding of contempt has been recorded against anyone.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Shillong: Taking suo motu cognisance of the abstention from judicial work called by the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, the Meghalaya High Court has asked their office-bearers to show cause why action for criminal contempt should not be taken, returnable on October 13 [Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya and Others, PIL No. 21/2026].
The order of October 8, 2026 was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew. What has been issued is a show-cause notice only.
Work stopped everywhere but Baghmara
Data placed before the Bench by the Registry showed that the abstention has hit judicial work in the High Court and in every district except Baghmara, leaving litigants without representation. The Court applauded the Baghmara Bar Association for staying out of the call, in line with the Constitution Bench ruling in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India. Its finding was:
Considering that the call for abstention given by the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association has obstructed administration of justice, the same would constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The reason given for the strike
On the reason behind the abstention, the Bench observed:
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.
How the call was made
The petition was registered suo motu after the two bar associations passed a resolution on September 30, 2026 asking lawyers in all districts to abstain from judicial work from October 1 until the Government of Meghalaya removes the Advocate General. The bar bodies have sought the removal over a statement attributed to the Advocate General in a case that the bar has failed to protect women lawyers in the State. The Court records only the stated reason for the abstention, which it described as one that courts are not concerned with.
Notice, personal presence and a warning
Notice under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution has gone to the office-bearers and executive members of both associations. All of them must remain personally present on October 13, and the notices are to be served through the Registrar General.
Advocates in other districts were warned as well: if judicial work is not resumed forthwith, the Bench will issue contempt notices on the next date to the presidents, secretaries and office-bearers of the district bar associations, except the Baghmara Bar Association. The Bar Council of India has been impleaded as respondent No. 5 and issued notice along with the Bar Council of Meghalaya, whose Chairman is expected to be present to report the action taken against the protesting lawyers.
The settled position
The order applies the settled position that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts, even where the call is framed as a protest against a government appointment, and places the first responsibility for disciplinary action on the Bar Councils.
The bar bodies’ side of the dispute is not recorded in this order, and they are yet to respond to the notice. The matter comes up again on October 13.
Case Title: Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya and Others [PIL No. 21/2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Meghalaya High Court
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
Next Date: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullai with Senior Government Advocate A.S. Dey and Government Advocate S. Laloo (State)