Meghalaya High Court Questions Amicus Absence During Lawyers’ Strike

The Meghalaya High Court expressed displeasure when an amicus curiae did not appear during a lawyers’ strike.

Background

The Court was considering the impact of collective abstention on its ability to proceed with matters in which an advocate had accepted a court-assigned role.

Legal issue

The issue concerns the duties owed by court-appointed assisting counsel to the administration of justice and whether Bar association decisions can override those responsibilities.

Court’s approach

The Court emphasised that an amicus assists the court and owes an independent duty to the justice process. The remarks address professional conduct rather than adjudicating the underlying merits.

What follows

The proceeding highlights the need for continuity of judicial assistance even during Bar protests. Any individual consequences depend on the Court’s formal directions.