Shillong, The Meghalaya High Court has issued criminal contempt notices to office-bearers of two bar associations over their "completely unacceptable" call for a judicial work boycott, demanding the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar from his post.
A division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice H S Thangkhiew took suo motu cognisance of the matter on Thursday, observing that the boycott had disrupted administration of justice and left litigants unrepresented in courts, except for Baghmara.
It issued notices to office-bearers and executive members of the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, asking them to show cause why criminal contempt action should not be initiated against them.
They have been directed to appear personally before the court on October 13, according to the order.
The two associations called for abstention from work from October 1 until the government removes Kumar, the state's chief legal officer, over remarks allegedly made during High Court proceedings on August 3 concerning the safety of women lawyers and the protection of a woman law intern, who was allegedly molested.
According to the high court, the demand for the advocate general's removal was no justification for abstaining from judicial work, adding that courts could not be used by lawyers to achieve such objectives.
{{/usCountry}}According to the high court, the demand for the advocate general's removal was no justification for abstaining from judicial work, adding that courts could not be used by lawyers to achieve such objectives.
{{/usCountry}}Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India, the bench reiterated that lawyers have no right to strike or call for a boycott of court proceedings, including token strikes.
It warned that contempt notices could be issued to office-bearers of other district bar associations if lawyers did not resume judicial work forthwith, excluding the Baghmara Bar Association, which had declined to support the boycott.
The court also impleaded the Bar Council of India as a respondent and directed the Chairman of the Bar Council of Meghalaya to appear personally on October 13 and inform it of the action taken against lawyers involved in the abstention.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.