Call for Removal of Advocate General Sparks Protests in Shillong
A significant protest unfolded in Shillong on Thursday as local lawyers rallied to demand the ousting of Meghalaya’s Advocate General, Amit Kumar. The move follows a resolution passed by both the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association earlier this month, urging the state government to remove Kumar from his position. This demand was sparked by Kumar’s controversial remarks, suggesting that the bar associations had failed to protect female lawyers.
Despite these demands, the state government, led by Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma, refused to comply, expressing confidence in Kumar’s capabilities and describing the state as fortunate to have him as Advocate General. This response only fueled the lawyers’ determination, leading to an intensified protest on Thursday. Protestors took to the streets, burning effigies of Kumar and brandishing placards urging him to return to his legal practice in Delhi.
The protestors chanted slogans such as “Amit Kumar, Go Back!” and carried banners stating, “Our Bar, Our Home – Amit Kumar, Stop Defaming It.”
Underlying Controversy
The controversy traces back to Kumar’s submissions in a suo motu case before the Meghalaya High Court concerning the alleged assault and public humiliation of an advocate in Shillong. The advocate in question was previously accused of molesting a law intern. Kumar’s assertion that bar associations had failed to protect female lawyers led to a joint resolution from the two bar associations, expelling him from their rolls and demanding his removal. They claimed Kumar had no evidence to support his allegations.
The bar associations’ grievances extend beyond Kumar’s court submissions. They have also criticized his office for hiring lawyers from outside the state, which they view as undermining local legal professionals.
More Read
Supreme Court Bar Association’s Involvement
On August 14, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) intervened, expressing concern over the resolution against Kumar and calling for its repeal. The SCBA emphasized the collective responsibility of the legal community to ensure the safety and dignity of its members.
In response, the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association rebuffed the SCBA’s intervention, advising it to steer clear of interfering in their internal matters. They accused Kumar of manipulating the narrative to his favor and stressed their resolve not to be intimidated or coerced into reversing their decision.
“We do not wish to confront the SCBA,” the bar associations stated, “but we assert that our decisions, made democratically, shall stand, regardless of lobbying efforts.”
