Shillong, August 19: The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association on Wednesday defended their demand for the removal of Amit Kumar as Advocate General of Meghalaya, clarifying that their resolutions were prompted by his alleged remarks and not by his representation of a lawyer accused of misconduct.
Addressing the media, Shillong Bar Association Secretary T. L. Jyrwa and advocate Kishore Gautam said the two associations had adopted the resolutions after considering developments surrounding the alleged assault of a lawyer and subsequent proceedings before the Meghalaya High Court.
The associations clarified that they did not object to Kumar representing or assisting an accused lawyer, stressing that every accused person is entitled to legal representation and due process.
They also strongly condemned all forms of sexual harassment and emphasised that the safety and dignity of women advocates and law interns must be protected. At the same time, they maintained that lawyers must uphold the rule of law and cannot support private individuals or “non-State actors” taking the law into their own hands.
According to the Bar representatives, the controversy followed an incident in which a lawyer was allegedly assaulted and taken to a police station by a group of people. They maintained that allegations against any lawyer should be investigated by the competent authorities and dealt with in accordance with law.
The associations alleged that certain subsequent remarks by the Advocate General created an impression that the Bar bodies had failed to protect women members of the legal profession.
They described the remarks as unfounded and damaging to the reputation of the associations, asserting that it was these remarks—not Kumar’s representation of an accused person—that led to the resolutions seeking his removal.
The two associations said copies of their resolutions had been submitted to Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma for appropriate action. They also rejected suggestions that the move was politically motivated or intended to interfere with proceedings pending before the High Court.
The clarification came after the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) urged the Meghalaya Bar bodies to reconsider their decision. The SCBA maintained that Kumar’s submissions before the High Court related to the protection of the safety and dignity of women lawyers and law interns.
The Meghalaya Bar associations, however, said they stood by their resolutions and called for their position to be represented accurately.
Constitutional position
Under Article 165(1) of the Constitution of India, the Governor appoints the Advocate General of a State. Article 165(3) provides that the Advocate General holds office “during the pleasure of the Governor.”
Accordingly, the Bar associations can pass resolutions and request the removal of an Advocate General, but they do not themselves have the constitutional power to remove the incumbent from office. Any decision regarding the appointment or continuation of the Advocate General rests with the competent constitutional authority.
