Meghalaya bar associations have escalated their dispute with Advocate General Amit Kumar, removing him from their membership rolls and asking the Meghalaya government to remove him from the constitutional post. The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association took the decision after objecting to remarks Kumar made during High Court proceedings concerning the safety of women lawyers and law interns.
The development has triggered a wider debate within the legal fraternity, with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) urging the two associations to reconsider and withdraw their resolution. The SCBA said Kumar’s submissions were made during judicial proceedings on an issue already under consideration by the Meghalaya High Court.
Meghalaya bar associations pass joint resolution
The action followed an Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on August 5, attended by more than 400 advocates. The two associations resolved to remove Kumar from their respective rolls and said their members would no longer recognise him as the Advocate General of Meghalaya. They also called upon Chief Minister Conrad Sangma to take steps for his removal from office.
The dispute intensified after Kumar’s submissions during proceedings related to the alleged assault and public parading of an advocate in Shillong. The advocate had earlier faced allegations of molesting a female law intern.
According to reports, the advocate was allegedly taken from his chamber and publicly paraded by members of the Hynniewtrep National Youth Foundation (HNYF). The incident prompted the bar associations to approach the High Court and raise concerns over the authorities’ response.
Dispute centres on women’s safety
During a subsequent hearing, Kumar informed the High Court that an FIR had been registered and four people had been arrested in connection with the incident. He also submitted that there was no proper mechanism functioning within the Bar associations for dealing with complaints concerning women lawyers and interns.
The remarks became a major point of contention. The associations alleged that Kumar’s statements amounted to sweeping and disparaging allegations against the legal fraternity and questioned the manner in which he had characterised the Bar’s handling of women’s safety.
The issue also gained importance after a group of women advocates wrote to the High Court Bar Association on July 29, seeking implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act.
The High Court subsequently expanded the scope of the proceedings and impleaded the Bar Council of Meghalaya and the Bar Council of India to address concerns over the safety and dignity of women advocates and interns.
Amit Kumar defends his submissions
Kumar later clarified that his remarks were not intended to target any particular advocate, association or group. He said his submissions were aimed at highlighting an institutional gap in addressing sexual harassment concerns and allegations involving junior members of the Bar and law students.
He also referred to the State Bar Council’s earlier concurrence with Bar Council of India guidelines on sexual harassment. According to his response, questions remained about whether a functioning complaints committee had actually been constituted.
Kumar further declined to disclose details of complaints allegedly made by women members of the Bar without their consent, citing the need to protect their privacy.
The associations, however, maintained their position and demanded his removal. Earlier, they had also given the state government a one-week deadline to act. They raised additional concerns about the appointment of lawyers from outside Meghalaya and alleged questionable appointments involving relatives and acquaintances. The High Court Bar Association said it had filed an RTI application seeking information about such appointments and fee structures.
SCBA urges withdrawal of resolution
The latest twist came after the Supreme Court Bar Association intervened on August 14. The SCBA urged the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and Shillong Bar Association to withdraw their joint resolution against Kumar.
The SCBA argued that his statements were made in the course of judicial proceedings and in the context of serious concerns about the safety and dignity of women advocates and law interns. It said seeking action against the Advocate General for submissions made before the court was unwarranted and could further escalate the dispute.
The national bar body instead called for an effective and confidential mechanism through which women lawyers and interns could raise complaints and seek appropriate redress.
What happens next
The controversy now places the Meghalaya government in a difficult position. The Meghalaya bar associations have publicly demanded Kumar’s removal, while the SCBA has asked them to reconsider the action. The Advocate General’s appointment dates back to April 2018, when the Meghalaya government formally appointed Amit Kumar to the post.
The underlying High Court proceedings remain active, with the suo motu case scheduled for its next hearing on August 19. The court’s consideration of women’s workplace safety, the role of the Bar Council bodies and the response to the alleged assault will therefore remain central to the dispute.
For now, the conflict has moved beyond a disagreement over courtroom submissions and become a significant institutional dispute involving Meghalaya’s top law officer, local Bar associations and the country’s apex lawyers’ body. The coming hearings and the state government’s response are likely to determine whether the confrontation widens or moves towards a resolution.