Case at a glance: The Meghalaya High Court has discharged advocates in suo motu contempt proceedings over a bar resolution calling for abstention from judicial work, after they tendered unconditional apologies and undertook not to join future abstentions. The Division Bench found the apologies “bonafide and sincere” given the early withdrawal of the call.
On 30 September 2026 the Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association passed a resolution calling for abstention from judicial work in all districts from 1 October 2026 until the State Government removed the Advocate General from his post.
On 8 October the High Court issued show-cause notices to the named advocates under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215. On 9 October the associations withdrew the call.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should advocates who joined a resolution to abstain from court work be punished for contempt after withdrawing it and apologising?
Abstention, Apology and Discharge
The Court dropped proceedings against advocates who had resigned their posts before the resolution and against two who showed with documents that they had appeared in court. The remaining advocates filed identical affidavits tendering unconditional apologies and undertaking not to join future abstentions.
Given the early withdrawal of the call, the prompt apology and the assurances, the Court found the apology “bonafide and sincere”, held that “the majesty of law stands restored”, and trusted that the conduct “will not be repeated in future.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The contemnors were purged of contempt and discharged.
- The contempt petition was closed.
- The suo motu PIL was disposed of.
- Proceedings were dropped against those who had resigned earlier or had appeared in court.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows courts treat calls to abstain from work seriously under contempt law.
- It illustrates how a prompt, unconditional apology can close proceedings.
- It distinguishes advocates who did not participate.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Bar Associations
- Calls to abstain from court work can attract contempt proceedings.
- Prompt withdrawal and unconditional apologies weigh heavily.
For Individual Advocates
- Keep records of court appearances; they can establish non-participation.
Key Takeaways
- Abstention calls attracted suo motu contempt.
- The call was withdrawn within days.
- Unconditional apologies were accepted.
- The advocates were discharged.
Frequently Asked Questions
The resolution sought the removal of the Advocate General from his post.
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution.
Yes—those who had resigned their posts before the resolution and two who proved they had appeared in court.
Conclusion
The order closes a short-lived standoff while making clear the Court's view of abstention calls.
Practical takeaway: Collective abstention from court work invites contempt; prompt withdrawal and genuine apology can end the matter.