Meghalaya lawyers extend court boycott after failed talks with government

Shillong: Lawyers across Meghalaya are staying off the job. An open-ended boycott of judicial work continues following unproductive talks on Tuesday with Law Minister Lahkmen Rymbui. The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association demand the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar. No deal was reached.

The meeting took place at the Main Secretariat. Rymbui offered no promises that Kumar would step down, stating the appointment is a government decision that now sits with the Council of Ministers. Secretary general K. C. Gautam expressed frustration that the government ignored previous outreach. The associations first contacted Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma on August 7, but he never responded. Gautam noted the minister lacked the file on the dispute, saying, "The Bar was surprised, he said, that the Law Minister did not have copies of the earlier letters to the Chief Minister."

Gautam claims the issue spans more than just courtroom remarks. He cited deeper allegations involving misuse of the Advocate General's office and irregular appointments. He questioned why the state protects one person despite opposition from over 1,000 Shillong lawyers and 2,500 across the state. Courts were left empty Tuesday as lawyers avoided all regular matters, though they exempted bail hearings from the protest. The groups plan to meet again this Thursday to determine their next move.

Disclaimer: The views and facts expressed here are solely those of the independent citizen journalist, researcher, and others, who assumes full responsibility for the content's accuracy and legality. Any third-party media (images, videos, or audio) used belongs to its respective owners and is shared strictly for reporting, criticism, or review under the "Fair Dealing" provisions of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (India). NEWire.in does not claim ownership over such material and reserves the right to review, moderate, or remove content at its sole discretion upon receiving valid legal concerns or grievances.

Comments
Please login to comment.