Bar Associations' Call for Abstention Withdrawn Promptly; Court Restores Majesty of Law After Advocates' Sincere Regret and Assurance
In a significant ruling delivered on October 14, 2026, the Meghalaya High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, closed contempt proceedings against several advocates who participated in a strike called by the Shillong Bar Association and the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association. The abstention from judicial work was aimed at pressuring the state government to remove the Advocate General from his post.
The Court had suo motu registered a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) after the Bar Associations passed a resolution on September 30, 2026, calling for all advocates in Meghalaya's districts to abstain from court work starting October 1, 2026. Viewing this as a serious interference with the administration of justice, the Court issued show cause notices on October 8, 2026, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to the advocates involved.
On the returnable date, October 13, 2026, all advocates except two appeared before the Court. The two who did not appear were found to have resigned from their posts well before the strike resolution was passed, leading the Court to drop contempt proceedings against them. Two other advocates submitted affidavits proving they did not participate in the boycott and attended courts despite the call for abstention; contempt proceedings against them were also dropped.
The remaining advocates tendered unconditional apologies, expressing sincere regret for their participation and assuring the Court that they would not repeat such conduct. Importantly, the Bar Associations withdrew the call for abstention the very next day after the Court issued the show cause notices, demonstrating prompt corrective action.
The Court, satisfied with the bona fide nature of the apologies and the early withdrawal of the strike, held that the majesty of law stood restored. It accepted the apologies, purged the contemnors of contempt, and discharged them from the proceedings. The contempt petition was accordingly closed.
In its concluding remarks, the Court appreciated the stand taken by the Bar Associations and expressed hope that such interference with judicial work would not recur in the future.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's firm stance against any action that disrupts the administration of justice while also recognizing sincere efforts to uphold the rule of law.
Bottom Line:
Contempt of Court - Call for abstention from judicial work by Bar Associations - Participation by advocates in strike/boycott of court work amounts to serious interference with administration of justice - However, where call for abstention was withdrawn immediately after issuance of show cause notice and advocates tendered bona fide unconditional apology with assurance not to repeat such conduct, Court accepted apology, held majesty of law restored, purged contemnors of contempt and closed proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 15, Constitution of India Article 215
