Lawyers across Meghalaya have spent weeks demanding that Advocate General Amit Kumar resign or be removed. On August 27, more than 1,000 lawyers marched through Shillong, which they described as a first in the state’s history.
The next day, lawyers across the state stayed away from court proceedings, and the Tura Bar Association suspended work in support. On September 1, protesters threw eggs at a banner of Kumar bearing a “go back” message.
As of October 7, the High Court Bar Association and Shillong Bar Association were still protesting, joined by lawyers from several district bars.
What triggered the protest
The dispute began with Kumar’s submissions before the Meghalaya High Court in a case involving the alleged sexual harassment of a woman law intern by a senior advocate, followed by the assault and public parading of that advocate.
Kumar reportedly cited the safety of women lawyers and interns and said there had been other instances of harassment within Shillong’s legal community.
The bar associations objected. They said they knew of no such additional cases, that Kumar had not provided details when asked, and that his remarks unfairly painted the entire fraternity.
Kumar expressed regret over how his words were taken, saying he was referring to institutional shortcomings. The Bar did not accept this as an adequate apology.
The lawyers have said their objection is not to Kumar’s support for the intern. They have rejected media reports that portrayed the protest as opposition to his backing of her.
How the dispute widened
The two associations struck Kumar off their rolls and asked the government to remove him. Their demands have since expanded to the functioning of his office.
The lawyers allege that it engages lawyers from outside Meghalaya for state matters, that public money spent on this should be scrutinised, and that Kumar’s son was appointed to represent Meghalaya in the Supreme Court.
One bar leader has accused Kumar of misusing his office by placing his own people in Meghalaya cases and wasting public funds on outsiders. These are allegations by the protesters and have not been established.
The associations have filed RTI applications seeking details of expenditure and appointments. One lawyer says that, after an appeal was filed, the government is trying to withhold that information.
There is also a question of representation. Many lawyers believe a large and experienced Meghalaya bar should get more opportunities to represent the state.
The government’s position
Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma has publicly defended Kumar. He said Meghalaya was “very lucky” to have him and credited him with guiding the government on crucial legal matters, even though he could practise independently in Delhi. The lawyers reacted angrily.
Talks have so far failed to resolve the dispute. After one meeting, a minister reportedly said appointments handled by the Law department could be looked at, but that removing Kumar would be a cabinet decision.
No timeframe or assurance was given. The government later asked for two weeks and reportedly promised that Kumar and other outstation panel lawyers would not appear in court in the meantime. Bar leaders say Kumar then appeared in the Commercial Court the same day. The government’s side of that claim was not in the reports I found.
Who is backing whom
Opposition parties have also joined the dispute. The VPP has asked for Kumar’s removal and an independent inquiry into lawyer appointments during his tenure, and wants a senior local advocate named as his successor.
There has been opposition to the lawyers’ campaign as well. The Supreme Court Bar Association urged the Meghalaya bodies to reconsider, arguing that Kumar’s submissions should be viewed in the context of proceedings already before the High Court. They declined.
What happens next
For now, the main question is whether the state cabinet will consider the demand to remove Kumar. The minister who met the lawyers has said the decision rests with the cabinet, but no timeline has been given.
The bar associations have said they will continue the agitation until Kumar resigns or is removed, meaning court boycotts could continue to disrupt hearings.
The RTI appeal could provide another important piece of the picture. If details of expenditure and appointments are released, they may shed light on the lawyers’ wider allegations. Until then, those claims remain unproven.
Also Read: Sensiari II: Why Mizoram is taking its HIV message back to cinema