Meghalaya bar associations seek removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar

The Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association have jointly called for the removal of state Advocate General Amit Kumar, citing alleged remarks made during court proceedings and concerns over the state government’s handling of legal appointments.

The two associations submitted a memorandum to Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma, stating that more than 400 members had unanimously adopted a resolution on August 5 seeking Kumar’s removal from the associations and withdrawal of his membership.

The immediate dispute relates to an alleged statement made by Kumar during the hearing of WP (C) No. 350/2026 on August 3. The associations claimed that the Advocate General had alleged that they failed to ensure a safe working environment for women lawyers and had not adequately addressed complaints of sexual harassment.

The associations rejected the allegations, saying they had sought details of the purported complaints in writing but had not received any information or supporting facts.

They said the writ petition primarily concerned incidents involving non-state actors who allegedly took the law into their own hands. The associations also referred to an alleged attack on a lawyer and an incident in which the lawyer was publicly paraded through a market following allegations of molestation involving an intern.

The memorandum also raised concerns over the state government’s alleged practice of appointing external and non-local lawyers to represent it. The associations claimed that some of the lawyers appointed lacked sufficient experience and that the appointments had increased the financial burden on the state while overlooking competent local advocates.

The associations have sought Kumar’s immediate removal as Advocate General, along with a review of records relating to the appointment of external lawyers and cancellation of appointments found to have been made improperly.

They have further called for a transparent and impartial mechanism for appointing government advocates and law officers, with competent local lawyers given preference.

The dispute widened on August 17, when the two associations wrote to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), objecting to a resolution passed by the national body in support of Kumar.

The Meghalaya associations alleged that the SCBA had acted on a “one-sided narrative” and said intervention by a national-level bar organisation could undermine the autonomy of the state’s bar associations and their democratically adopted decisions.

The associations have asked the Meghalaya government to respond to their demands within a week, saying a time-bound resolution is necessary to address the dispute and preserve institutional harmony within the legal fraternity.