Lawyers across Meghalaya boycotted court proceedings and staged protests demanding the resignation or removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar, intensifying an ongoing dispute between the state’s legal fraternity and the government.
The protest was led by the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association, with lawyers taking to the streets in Shillong. The agitation also received support from other parts of the state, including the Tura Bar Association, which reportedly boycotted court work in solidarity with the protest.
The lawyers’ demand for Kumar’s removal follows a controversy over remarks he allegedly made during proceedings before the Meghalaya High Court. The bar associations have also raised concerns over the functioning of the Advocate General’s office.
Lawyers Boycott Court Proceedings Across Meghalaya
The protest saw lawyers abstaining from court work and joining demonstrations against the Advocate General. Senior advocate Kishore Chand Gautam said the agitation reflected the collective position of bar associations across Meghalaya and was not limited to Shillong.
In Shillong, protesting lawyers marched through the streets and raised slogans demanding Kumar’s removal. Demonstrators also burnt an effigy of the Advocate General and carried placards expressing their opposition to his continued tenure.
The statewide boycott marked a significant escalation in the dispute, with the legal fraternity seeking action from the Meghalaya government over the matter.
Row Linked to Advocate General’s Remarks in Court
The controversy stems from submissions made by Amit Kumar before the Meghalaya High Court in connection with a suo motu case concerning the alleged physical assault and public parading of an advocate in Shillong.
According to reports, Kumar stated before the court that the bar and bar associations had failed to protect a young woman intern. The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association strongly objected to the statement, accusing him of making broad and unsubstantiated allegations against the legal fraternity.
The bar associations subsequently passed a joint resolution seeking his removal and expelled him from their membership rolls. Kumar, however, defended his remarks, maintaining that he had raised the matter as part of his responsibility and that his comments were not intended to unfairly target the bar associations.
Bar Bodies Raise Concerns Over Functioning of AG’s Office
The dispute has since expanded beyond Kumar’s courtroom remarks.
The protesting lawyers have also raised concerns over the functioning of the Advocate General’s office, including objections to the engagement of lawyers from outside Meghalaya for legal work connected with the state. These issues have added to the growing tensions between the Advocate General and sections of Meghalaya’s legal fraternity.
The lawyers have maintained that their demand is based on concerns regarding the dignity, interests and functioning of the state’s legal institutions.
Meghalaya Government Had Earlier Declined Demand
The demand for Kumar’s removal had earlier been raised before the Meghalaya government. However, the government did not accede to the request, with reports quoting Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma as expressing support for the Advocate General.
Following the government’s response, the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association intensified their agitation, culminating in the statewide boycott and protest.
The standoff has also drawn attention from outside the state. The Supreme Court Bar Association had expressed concern over the action taken against Kumar and called for the relevant resolution to be withdrawn. The Meghalaya bar bodies, however, rejected what they described as outside interference and stood by their decision.
Legal Fraternity Seeks Resolution to Standoff
The court boycott has brought the dispute into sharper focus, with lawyers demanding that the state government reconsider its position and take action regarding the Advocate General.
For the protesting lawyers, the issue concerns not only the remarks that triggered the controversy but also broader questions surrounding the functioning of the Advocate General’s office and its relationship with the state’s legal community.
As the standoff continues, attention will remain on the response of the Meghalaya government and whether any effort is made to resolve the dispute between the legal fraternity and the Advocate General.
The statewide protest and boycott underline the intensity of the disagreement, with the bar associations maintaining their demand for Amit Kumar’s removal while the government has so far declined to act on their earlier request.