Shillong: The dispute over Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar has widened into an internal rift within the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, with its president disowning a court boycott call and questioning the secretary’s unilateral actions on the issue.
In a letter to Bar Association Secretary Kishore Ch Gautam on October 1, President KS Kynjing expressed “serious dissatisfaction” over communications, press statements and decisions taken in the name of the association without the approval of its executive committee.
Kynjing said Gautam had written to the Supreme Court Bar Association on August 17 over the Advocate General issue without first placing the matter before the executive committee. He also objected to press releases and a press conference allegedly being conducted without prior approval.
The latest flashpoint was a joint meeting of the High Court Bar Association and Shillong Bar Association on September 30, where a decision was taken to boycott courts and tribunals across Meghalaya from October 1.
Kynjing termed the decision “highly illegal”, citing the Supreme Court’s 2003 judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v Union of India, which held that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts and that bar associations cannot authorise such action.
He also said members of the State Bar Council had participated in the procession and abstained from court proceedings without permission from the Chief Justice or District Judge.
The president further objected to banners carrying the slogan “Go Back Amit Kumar” being displayed on the High Court Bar Association premises without approval from the executive committee or general body. He directed that the banners be removed.
The dispute centres on the demand by Meghalaya’s bar associations for the removal of Kumar as Advocate General. The associations had earlier resolved to remove Kumar from their rolls and demanded that the state government remove him as the state’s top law officer. Kumar, however, has continued to function as Advocate General.
The president said the government has the prerogative to appoint the Advocate General and that dissatisfaction with its choice cannot give a local bar association the right to halt court proceedings.
He also noted that Kumar had tendered an apology on August 13 and appealed to lawyers to refrain from rallies, strikes and boycotts that could affect the administration of justice.
The development comes a day after the joint bar bodies announced that lawyers would abstain from judicial work from October 1, except in bail and urgent matters, until the government removes Kumar. The associations had said their decision followed what they described as the government’s failure to act on assurances regarding Kumar’s appearance for the state.
The internal disagreement now puts the focus not only on the continuing confrontation between the bar and the government, but also on the question of who has the authority to speak and act on behalf of the High Court Bar Association.
Also Read: How solar energy is strengthening healthcare across Mizoram