Shillong: The Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association on Wednesday clarified that their demand for the removal of Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar has no connection with any attempt to shield a lawyer accused of sexually harassing his junior.
Addressing a press conference in Shillong, Shillong Bar Association secretary TL Jyrwa said a “false narrative” was being created in sections of the digital media linking the bar associations’ demand for Kumar’s removal with the case involving the alleged molestation of a junior by a senior advocate.
Jyrwa said the bar associations had strongly condemned the alleged sexual harassment and had immediately suspended the accused advocate after the incident came to light.
“We are condemning any act of sexual harassment or any act which is not dignified in any way, especially when they are from the legal fraternity,” he said.
He added that further disciplinary action, including possible termination of the accused’s membership, would depend on the outcome of the proceedings.
However, Jyrwa said the bar associations approached the High Court after the accused lawyer was allegedly assaulted and paraded through the city before being taken to a police station.
“Our purpose of going before the High Court was not to shield the accused advocate, but only to ensure that the rule of law, which is supreme, prevails,” he said.
High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association secretary general KC Gautam said the associations had been disturbed by a video circulated on social media on July 28 showing the lawyer allegedly being paraded along Keating Road to the police station.
Gautam said the Bar Council of Meghalaya had received a complaint from the alleged victim and would take action according to law, while an FIR had also been registered and the police were investigating the matter.
He stressed that the accused must face due process of law and that non-state actors could not take the law into their own hands.
“Our only purpose to go before the High Court was to ensure that the rule of law, which is supreme, should prevail,” Gautam said.
Gautam said the bar associations’ subsequent demand for Kumar’s removal stemmed from statements he allegedly made during the court proceedings concerning the assault on the lawyer.
According to Gautam, Kumar had submitted that he had received complaints and that there were numerous similar incidents involving women in the legal fraternity.
The statement surprised members of both bar associations, he said, as their office-bearers had not received complaints of such incidents.
The associations subsequently sought details of the alleged complaints from Kumar through senior counsel K Paul. Gautam said Kumar responded with a 13-page letter, declining to provide the information and making remarks that the bar associations considered offensive.
Gautam said the issue was subsequently discussed at a general body meeting attended by more than members, where members unanimously resolved to write to Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma seeking Kumar’s removal as Advocate General.
He said the demand was based on several concerns, including Kumar’s alleged remarks in court, which the associations felt had portrayed Meghalaya and its legal fraternity in a negative manner.
Gautam also alleged that the state government had incurred substantial expenditure by engaging lawyers from outside Meghalaya in cases that local advocates could handle.
He claimed that lawyers from Delhi had been brought in for what he described as relatively small matters, with expenses including travel and accommodation being borne by the state.
He further alleged that Kumar’s son had recently been appointed as a panel advocate for the state in the Supreme Court. These claims, he said, would be substantiated through RTI applications filed by the associations.
Ila Lyngdoh, treasurer of the Shillong Bar Association, said a meeting of female members of both bar associations was convened after Kumar’s remarks in court.
She said the women lawyers were asked whether they had experienced harassment or sexual harassment within the legal fraternity.
According to Lyngdoh, the members said they had not faced such incidents and that no complaints of sexual harassment had been brought to the associations.
She said the women lawyers also condemned Kumar’s statements, maintaining that had any such incident occurred, they would have approached the bar associations for assistance.
Lyngdoh said the meeting’s suggestions were subsequently placed before the general body.
The bar associations maintained that they would not protect any lawyer accused of wrongdoing and that appropriate disciplinary action should follow if the allegations against the accused advocate are established.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
Jyrwa said the purpose of Wednesday’s press conference was to “set the narrative straight” amid what the associations described as misleading reports about the reasons behind their demand for Kumar’s removal.
“The purpose of us approaching the court was not to shield the accused advocate, but only for the fact that the law, the rule of law, is supreme and non-state actors cannot take the law into their own hands,” he reiterated.
Also Read | Shillong relocates over 750 street vendors to designated vending zones