The Meghalaya High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against office-bearers and executive members of two lawyers’ associations for calling a boycott of court proceedings to demand the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H S Thangkhiew issued show-cause notices to representatives of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association on Thursday. The court directed them to appear personally on October 13 and explain why criminal contempt action should not be taken against them.
The bench found that the lawyers’ abstention from judicial work had interfered with the administration of justice, leaving litigants without legal representation in courts across the state, except in Baghmara.
Court Rejects Boycott Over Demand for Advocate General’s Removal
The dispute arose after the two bar associations announced a boycott of judicial work beginning October 1, demanding that the state government remove Advocate General Amit Kumar.
The associations objected to remarks allegedly made by Kumar during High Court proceedings on August 3. The remarks concerned the safety of women advocates and the protection of a female law intern who had allegedly been molested.
The High Court held that seeking the removal of the Advocate General could not justify suspending court work. It described the boycott call as completely unacceptable and made it clear that lawyers could not resort to disrupting judicial proceedings to secure their demands.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India, the bench reiterated that advocates have no right to strike or boycott court proceedings, even for a token period.
Other District Bar Associations Warned
The High Court also cautioned that office-bearers of other district bar associations could face contempt notices unless advocates resumed judicial work immediately.
The warning did not extend to the Baghmara Bar Association, which had refused to participate in the boycott.
The court noted that the continued absence of lawyers had affected litigants and obstructed the functioning of courts.
Bar Council Chairman Summoned for October 13
Apart from issuing notices to the two associations, the High Court made the Bar Council of India a respondent in the proceedings.
It also directed the Chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya to appear personally before the bench on October 13.
The Chairman has been asked to inform the court about the action taken against advocates who participated in the boycott.
The matter will be taken up on October 13, when the association representatives and the Bar Council Chairman are required to appear before the High Court.
