A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew registered a suo motu petition after the two Bar Associations, through a resolution dated September 30, called for abstention from judicial work from October 1 until the Advocate General was removed from office.

The Registry placed before the Court data showing that the abstention had affected judicial work and, consequently, the administration of justice across the State, except in Baghmara district. The Court noted that the Baghmara Bar Association had refused to support the call, as doing so would be contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India. The Court applauded the Association's decision to abide by the law.

Relying on Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal, the Court noted that lawyers have no right to go on strike, including a token strike, or to give a call for a strike. It further observed that an advocate is an officer of the Court and has a duty to ensure its smooth functioning, while strikes interfere with the administration of justice and jeopardise the interests of litigants.

The Court also relied on Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, observing that uncalled-for lawyers' strikes are among the causes of delay in the administration of justice and that such strikes, being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, amount to contempt. It further noted that office-bearers who call for such strikes cannot disown liability for contempt.

Referring to Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors., the Court noted that abstention from work, even if described as a boycott, protest or token strike, is a strike in effect and is illegal.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that the reason cited for the abstention—remaining away from judicial work until the State Government removed the Advocate General—was “completely unacceptable”. It held that courts cannot be used by lawyers to achieve the objective of securing the Advocate General's removal and that such abstention was “uncalled for” and could not be countenanced.

The Court accordingly issued notices under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution to the office-bearers and executive members of both Bar Associations, asking them to show cause why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for calling the abstention and obstructing the administration of justice.

The matter has been made returnable on October 13, with all the contemnors directed to remain personally present before the Court.

The Court further warned that if lawyers in other districts did not resume judicial work forthwith, it would consider issuing contempt notices against the Presidents, Secretaries and office-bearers of the respective District Bar Associations, excluding the Baghmara Bar Association.

The Court also impleaded the Bar Council of India as a respondent and issued notices to the Meghalaya State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. It directed the Chairman of the Meghalaya State Bar Council to remain personally present on October 13 and inform the Court about the action taken against the lawyers who called for the abstention.