SHILLONG, Oct 13: The Meghalaya High Court on Tuesday granted time to the advocates facing contempt proceedings to file affidavits tendering an unconditional apology and assuring that they would not repeat the conduct in question.
A division bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew passed the order while hearing the PIL No. 21 of 2026.
Pursuant to the court’s order dated October 8, 2026 issuing notice under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, all the advocates named in paragraph 10 of that order appeared in person, except those listed at serial numbers 13 and 15(vi).
They sought time to file their respective affidavits. The court allowed the request and directed that the matter be listed on October 14, 2026.
The contempt proceedings remain pending.
It may be recalled that the High Court had issued notices on October 8 under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, to 24 office-bearers and executive members of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association.
The two-judge bench had asked the lawyers to show cause why criminal contempt action should not be taken against them for calling for abstention from judicial work in all courts in the state and for obstructing the administration of justice.
The Court had registered the suo motu PIL following a resolution dated September 30, 2026, by the two associations directing abstention from October 1, 2026, until the state government removed Advocate General Amit Kumar.
Resolve differences through dialogue: CM
Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma on Tuesday urged the legal fraternity to settle its differences over Advocate General Amit Kumar through dialogue, saying the government must protect the functioning of its legal system while addressing lawyers’ concerns.
Sangma said he respected the Bar Association’s concerns and had tried to mediate. Further talks, he added, could ease tensions without disrupting the government’s legal work.
A decision on replacing the Advocate General could not be taken in haste, he maintained, because the office handles cases across several departments involving farmers, miners, teachers and other sections of society. Reorganising the Law Department and related administrative arrangements required careful consideration rather than an immediate response to demands.
He noted that Kumar had stayed away from most cases in which lawyers had asked him not to appear. In certain matters, however, the Advocate General’s knowledge of the subject was considered necessary to safeguard the interests of those affected.
Responding to allegations that personal ties influenced his stand, Sangma acknowledged that the two had known each other for many years but said Kumar’s professional contribution should be judged by those who had worked with him. He recalled that in 2008 the late P.A. Sangma had proposed Kumar’s name for the post to then chief minister Donkupar Roy, though the appointment did not materialise.
While making no announcement on the demand for Kumar’s removal, the Chief Minister said he remained ready to facilitate discussions. Dialogue, he stressed, was the way forward.