GUWAHATI: The Meghalaya High Court on Thursday issued contempt notices to 26 office-bearers and executive members of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association for their call for a boycott of judicial work demanding the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar, terming the abstention “completely unacceptable and illegal”.
The notices were issued under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew asked them to show cause why action for criminal contempt should not be initiated against them for their call for abstention from judicial work in all courts of Meghalaya and for obstructing the administration of justice.
The court had registered a petition suo motu in view of the call for abstention of judicial work given by the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association to all districts.
Data received by the court from the Registry revealed that the abstention affected or impacted judicial work in all districts, barring Baghmara which is the headquarters of South Garo Hills district.
The Baghmara Bar Association refused to support the call, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India. In the judgement, the apex court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike, even a token strike, or to give a call for strike.
“…the reason given for abstention is ‘abstain from judicial work till the state government removes the Advocate General’. A reason completely unacceptable. 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. Strikes/abstention from work on any count much less the present reason given, is, completely illegal,” the court said in its order.
The court made it clear that if judicial work is not resumed by the advocates in other districts forthwith, it will be constrained to issue contempt notices even against the presidents, secretaries and office-bearers of the respective District Bar Associations on the next date, except the Baghmara Bar Association.
The controversy erupted after the Advocate General had on August 3 this year criticised the local bar associations for “failing” to protect women lawyers. The remarks followed the alleged molestation of a woman law intern and the resultant assault on an advocate.