Meghalaya High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Lawyers' Strike
The Meghalaya High Court, comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice HS Thangkhiew, has initiated a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) in response to the ongoing abstention from judicial work by lawyers in Shillong. The Court issued contempt of court notices to the office-bearers and executive members of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association for their call to suspend judicial proceedings.
The bar associations had urged lawyers to abstain from judicial duties starting from October 1, demanding the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar. This demand stemmed from a statement made by the Advocate General in a case, where he reportedly asserted that the bar had failed in its duty to protect women lawyers in the State. Taking strong objection to this statement, the bar bodies resolved to continue their abstention until their demand for Mr. Kumar's removal was met by the State.
Court's Legal Rationale on Strikes and Contempt
On October 1, the High Court took judicial cognizance of the strike, which affected judicial work in the High Court and all district courts across Meghalaya, with the exception of Baghmara district. The bench underscored the well-established legal principle that advocates possess no right to engage in strikes, including token strikes, or to issue calls for such actions. The Court explicitly stated that the strike orchestrated by the bar bodies amounted to an obstruction of the administration of justice.
The High Court further opined that the call for abstention issued by the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, by impeding the administration of justice, would constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This observation forms the core legal basis for the suo motu proceedings initiated by the bench.
Directives to Bar Associations and Bar Councils
Consequently, the Court directed the office-bearers, including the executive members, of both the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, to show cause as to why proceedings for criminal contempt should not be initiated against them. This directive was issued in light of their role in calling for the abstention from judicial work across all courts in Meghalaya.
The High Court mandated the personal presence of all contemnors at the next hearing, scheduled for October 13. The Court also instructed that contempt notices be served through the Registrar General of the High Court of Meghalaya to ensure the contemnors' appearance. Furthermore, the bench issued a clear warning that should judicial work not resume in other districts, it would be compelled to issue similar contempt notices against the President, Secretary, and other office-bearers of the respective district bar associations.
Recognising the broader regulatory framework, the Court also issued notices to the Bar Council of Meghalaya and the Bar Council of India. The High Court highlighted that it is the statutory responsibility of these bodies to undertake disciplinary action against lawyers who abstain from work. The Court expressed its expectation for the Chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya to appear personally at the next hearing to apprise the Court of the actions taken by the Bar Council against the protesting lawyers who initiated the call for abstention from judicial duties.
Additional Advocate General ND Chullai, Senior Government Advocate AS Dey, and Government Advocate S Laloo represented the State in the proceedings. The matter is slated for further hearing on October 13, where the contemnors and the Chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya are expected to present their responses to the Court's directives.