Shillong: Meghalaya’s legal community is locked in a fierce battle with Advocate General Amit Kumar. Lawyers want him gone. The standoff hit a boiling point after Kumar’s August 3 High Court testimony regarding the sexual harassment of a junior lawyer and the assault of an advocate. Kumar claimed the Bar failed to protect women, a statement the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association slammed as a false aspersion.
Kumar rejects all allegations as baseless. He maintains that flagging safety concerns for women in the law profession was his duty. Protesting lawyers disagree. They marched through Shillong and abstained from judicial proceedings across the High Court and District Courts. This escalated beyond courtroom rhetoric. The Bar is now challenging the state’s use of expensive Delhi counsel and questioning the appointment of Kumar’s son as a Supreme Court panel advocate. They are currently pulling Right to Information records to prove financial misconduct.
More than 400 advocates voted on August 5 to strike Kumar from their membership rolls. They also petitioned Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma for his removal. Attempting to manage the crisis, Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong and Law Minister Lahkmen Rymbui intervened. The government requested two weeks to review the grievances. They asked Kumar to step back from state representation during this window. The Bar agreed to return to courtrooms, though their demand for his resignation stands.
BJP MLA AL Hek is pushing for a peaceful resolution. He met with the Commissioner and Secretary of the Law Department to stress the need for a fix. “It is important to ensure that people approaching the courts for justice are not affected by this issue,” Hek said. The Supreme Court previously ruled in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India that lawyers have no right to boycott courts. Such actions hurt litigants. The Shillong Times asked Bar leadership for evidence regarding their claims and their justification for violating these Supreme Court rulings, but the Secretary General offered no response.
Comments