Archive · 9 Oct 2026
Meghalaya High Court Challenges Lawyers’ Statewide Court Boycott
Lawyers in Meghalaya stopped going to court to protest the state’s Advocate General, Amit Kumar.
The High Court said lawyers cannot use a court boycott to try to make the government remove him.
The judges said the boycott disrupted court work and could leave people without help in their cases.
They sent notices to leaders of the two bar associations that called the boycott.
Those leaders must explain their actions in court on October 13.
The court also asked the bar councils to say what steps they are taking.
The Baghmara Bar Association did not join the boycott.
The dispute began after the Advocate General criticized a bar association’s response to an alleged molestation of a law intern.
The Meghalaya High Court called the statewide abstention from judicial work illegal and unacceptable.
The Shillong and High Court of Meghalaya bar associations called the boycott from October 1 until the state government removed Advocate General Amit Kumar.
The court issued contempt notices to office-bearers and executive members of both associations, ordering them to appear on October 13.
The bench said the boycott disrupted court work and left litigants without legal representation; Baghmara was the exception.
The Bar Council of Meghalaya and Bar Council of India were asked to report on disciplinary action against lawyers who abstained.
- Who
- The Meghalaya High Court, the Shillong Bar Association, the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, and Advocate General Amit Kumar.
- What
- The High Court issued contempt notices over a statewide lawyers’ abstention from judicial work and declared the boycott illegal.
- When
- The court made its decision on October 8; the boycott began October 1, and the next hearing is scheduled for October 13.
- Where
- Meghalaya, including the High Court and district courts; Baghmara was the exception.
- Why
- The two bar associations called the boycott to press the state government to remove Amit Kumar as Advocate General.
Bar Associations’ Position
High Court’s Position
Demand for Advocate General’s removal
Bar Associations’ Position
The two bar associations called for abstention from judicial work until the state government removed Amit Kumar.
High Court’s Position
The court said courts cannot be used to achieve that objective and described the abstention as illegal.
Effect of the boycott
Bar Associations’ Position
The associations’ stated action was a protest over Kumar and his remarks about the legal fraternity.
High Court’s Position
The court said the boycott disrupted judicial work and left litigants without legal representation.
- Court
- Meghalaya High Court
- Judges
- Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H. S. Thangkhiew
- Boycott began
- October 1, following a resolution dated September 30
- Boycott demand
- Removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar by the state government
- Next hearing
- October 13
- Legal provisions cited
- Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution
- Exception
- The Baghmara Bar Association did not join the abstention