Court Rules Amicus Curiae Must Appear Despite Bar Association Strike Calls, Warns Non-Compliance May Attract Contempt Proceedings
In a significant ruling delivered on October 6, 2026, the Meghalaya High Court underscored the paramount duty of an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court irrespective of any Bar strike calls. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh, expressed strong displeasure over the non-appearance of Mr. Nongbri, a learned advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Nos. 16 and 18 of 2026.
The Court noted that despite being informed of the hearing and the matter being kept back due to his absence, Mr. Nongbri did not appear, presumably owing to a Bar strike demanding the removal of the Advocate General. Observing that an Amicus Curiae is an officer and friend of the Court, not a party's counsel or merely a Bar member, the bench emphasized that such a role entails a solemn duty to justice that transcends loyalties to the Bar Association.
Highlighting that the refusal to appear in Court after appointment as Amicus Curiae borders on professional misconduct and could amount to contempt of Court, the bench warned that future occurrences might compel the Court to initiate appropriate actions against lawyers failing to fulfill such duties. The Court, while acknowledging the strike call, clarified that it does not apply to an Amicus Curiae who is duty-bound to assist the Court in arriving at a just decision.
In view of the above, the Meghalaya High Court relieved Mr. Nongbri of his duties as Amicus Curiae and appointed Mr. K. Paul, a senior counsel, in his place. The Registry was directed to provide all relevant documents and orders to Mr. Paul expeditiously to enable him to prepare for the subsequent hearing scheduled on October 9, 2026.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to members of the Bar that their paramount responsibility is to the Court and justice, and that professional obligations must be honored even amid protests or strikes. The ruling reinforces the principle that the role of Amicus Curiae is one of loyalty to the cause of justice, underscoring the judiciary's intolerance for non-compliance in this respect.
Bottom Line:
Amicus curiae is an officer and friend of the Court and cannot refuse to appear on the ground of a Bar strike; failure to appear after appointment may amount to misconduct and may also be viewed from the angle of contempt; Court may discharge such Amicus and appoint another.
Statutory provision(s):
Not explicitly mentioned in judgment text but pertains to inherent powers of High Court under Article 215 and contempt jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
