Shillong: The demand for the removal of Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar intensified on Wednesday as the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and Shillong Bar Association staged a protest, with lawyers from several district bar associations joining the agitation.
The peaceful march began at the Woh Kiang Nangbah Monument and passed through Barik, Malki and Lower Lachumiere before returning to the starting point. The lawyers later staged a sit-in outside the High Court Bar Association office.
Representatives and members of bar associations from across Meghalaya, including Garo Hills, Jaintia Hills and West Khasi Hills, participated in the rally.
Meghalaya High Court Bar Association secretary general Kishore Gautam said the government had earlier sought two weeks to address the lawyers’ concerns and assured them that Amit Kumar and other outstation panel lawyers would not appear in court during that period.
Gautam said the lawyers were initially called for a meeting with Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong and were later asked to meet Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma.
“In that meeting, once again, he said, give us two weeks’ time. In the meantime, Amit Kumar and the other lawyers, outstation lawyers who are in the panel, will not appear,” Gautam said.
However, Gautam alleged that Kumar subsequently appeared before the High Court and District Court despite the assurance. He said he informed the chief minister about the appearances and was told that a meeting would be held on October 7.
“On the same day after the meeting, we saw Mr Amit Kumar appearing in the Commercial Court. So basically, the assurance given by the government means nothing,” he said.
Gautam alleged that the government was attempting to delay the matter and divide the legal fraternity. He said the lawyers were seeking greater opportunities for members of the local bar.
Shillong Bar Association secretary TL Jyrwa said the legal fraternity remained united despite differences within the associations.
Jyrwa referred to a recent dispute involving High Court Bar Association president KS Kynjing, who, he said, had initially attended meetings and expressed his dissent before subsequently staying away.
According to Jyrwa, Kynjing circulated a letter on October 1 alleging that the agitation was being led unilaterally by two office-bearers of the bar.
Jyrwa rejected the allegation, saying the protests had the backing of general members and bar associations across the state.
“The general members are very much involved. We have the support of the bar associations from various districts, which is now also evident from their physical presence here,” he said.
Jyrwa also said the High Court Bar Association’s executive committee had initiated proceedings under a provision of its constitution concerning conduct against the interests of the association, with the final decision to be taken by the general body.
He claimed that Kynjing later issued suspension orders against some office-bearers involved in the agitation. Jyrwa questioned the validity of such action without an executive committee meeting and said the two bar associations were no longer recognising Kynjing as president.
Jyrwa described the developments as an attempt to divide the bar and said dissent was part of a democratic association, but the majority view should be respected.
“The message that we want to put up is that we have to stand united. You may have a right to dissent, we have a right to agree, no issue, but don’t try to break the association,” he said.
He said the rally was also intended to seek public support, arguing that the issue concerned the use of public funds to engage outstation lawyers when local lawyers were available.
“This issue of ours is not only the issue of the bar association, it is also an issue where collectively all the bars have understood,” Jyrwa said.
Jyrwa urged the chief minister to consider the concerns of the legal fraternity and provide greater opportunities to lawyers from Meghalaya.
“If we have any competency, look at us. If you feel the young lawyers are not competent, give us the opportunity so that we will be at the level of competency,” he said.
He also pointed to senior lawyers in the state who, he said, had practised for decades.
“We have seniors who have practised 30, 40, close to 50 years. How can you ignore, how can you turn a blind eye to such personalities of stature available in the bar?” he said.
The bar associations reiterated their demand for Kumar’s removal as Advocate General and called on the state government to address their concerns.