Shillong, September 3: Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar on Thursday rejected allegations of misuse of office, financial impropriety and favouritism towards lawyers from outside the State, saying he was prepared to face scrutiny and would resign immediately if any financial wrongdoing were established against him.
Addressing a press conference amid continuing demands by members of the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association (MHCBA) and Shillong Bar Association (SBA) for his removal, Kumar said the controversy appeared to have stemmed from a misunderstanding over remarks he made following the alleged molestation of a young law intern by a senior member of the Bar.
He stressed that his remarks were not directed at either Bar association or any individual member.
“They are my colleagues. I have worked with them, and whether I remain Advocate General or not, I will continue to be a member of the legal profession,” he said.
Call for Institutional Safeguards Misinterpreted
Kumar said the alleged molestation of the intern, and the subsequent involvement of people from outside the legal fraternity, highlighted the need for a proper institutional mechanism through which women lawyers and interns could report harassment.
He said several lawyers had submitted a representation seeking reforms to make Bar institutions safer and more conducive for women.
Kumar maintained that his call for the legal fraternity to “introspect” was not an accusation against all members of the Bar.
“I did not blame the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association, the Shillong Bar Association or any individual member. I only said that we should introspect and develop a mechanism through which such complaints can be addressed,” he said.
He argued that an effective internal mechanism might have allowed the intern to report the alleged incident without having to approach individuals outside the legal profession.
At the same time, Kumar condemned any attempt by individuals or groups to take the law into their own hands.
He said he subsequently withdrew an earlier letter and expressed regret if anything he had written or said had hurt members of the Bar. Despite this, he claimed that he was expelled from the MHCBA without being given an adequate opportunity to explain his position.
He appealed to the association to reconsider the decision and allow him to present his case before its members.
Refers to Earlier Allegations Against Accused Lawyer
Kumar also claimed that information concerning similar allegations against the same lawyer in 2017 and 2024 had emerged following the latest incident.
He said the 2017 matter had reportedly been closed for lack of sufficient evidence. However, after examining the available material, he felt the matter warranted reconsideration and said he would advise the appropriate authorities accordingly.
Regarding the alleged 2024 incident, Kumar said the woman concerned had recorded her statement and that authorities were examining whether a formal case should be registered.
He further said he had advised police to examine whether provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could apply to the latest case.
All such allegations remain subject to investigation and due legal process.
Denies Favouring Lawyers From Outside Meghalaya
Responding to allegations that he had favoured lawyers from Delhi and other States, Kumar said the Meghalaya Government currently had around 39 local lawyers on its panel.
He acknowledged receiving assistance from an 11-member professional legal team, which includes his wife and son, but maintained that they were not paid by the State Government for the routine assistance they provided to his office.
According to Kumar, the team assists with legal research, drafting, policy advice and preparation of compliance reports, particularly in public-interest litigation and technically complex or commercial disputes.
He said his office had handled or provided advice in approximately 1,101 matters during the period for which records had been compiled.
Kumar challenged his critics to identify any instance in which members of his team had improperly received payment from the Government.
“If anyone can show that these lawyers have raised a single unauthorised bill against the Government for the work performed with me, I will accept responsibility and resign immediately,” he declared.
He maintained that lawyers from outside Meghalaya were engaged only for selected matters requiring specialised expertise or involving substantial financial stakes, while local lawyers continued to handle most routine criminal, service, land-acquisition and education-related cases.
Says Fees Follow Government-Approved Schedule
The Advocate General also rejected allegations of charging excessive professional fees.
He said his remuneration continued to be governed by a fee schedule that came into effect on April 1, 2019, following a government decision issued in October 2018.
According to Kumar, the schedule provides for:
- Monthly retainership: ₹50,000
- Meghalaya High Court appearance: ₹20,000
- Supreme Court appearance: ₹40,000
- Legal opinion: ₹11,000
He asserted that during his approximately eight-and-a-half-year tenure, he had neither submitted a bill outside the approved schedule nor received an advance from the Law Department.
Kumar clarified that higher fees paid to special counsel or special public prosecutors were negotiated separately and approved by the Government based on the requirements of individual cases.
Cites High-Value Cases
Defending the engagement of specialised legal teams, Kumar referred to major arbitration and infrastructure disputes involving claims running into hundreds of crores of rupees.
He claimed that his team had successfully defended the State in several proceedings, including a contractor’s claim of approximately ₹1,130 crore, which was rejected through an arbitral award in August 2026.
He also referred to another road-project dispute in which, he said, examination of thousands of pages of documents revealed material indicating possible corruption and bribery. According to Kumar, the findings led to registration of an FIR and action against the company concerned.
He further cited cases involving Meghalaya Energy Corporation Limited, public-interest litigation, mineral rights and the Shillong Medical College as examples of matters in which his office had sought to protect public and financial interests.
Outside legal experts, he said, were engaged only when the complexity and financial value of a dispute warranted specialised expertise.
“If such cases are not defended properly, the State could lose enormous amounts of public money,” Kumar said.
Admits Communication Gap With Local Bar
Kumar acknowledged that limited interaction with members of the local Bar might have contributed to the current dispute.
He said the volume of government litigation and preparation of compliance reports had left him with limited time for regular engagement with the legal fraternity.
“There may have been a communication gap between me and the Bar. Had there been more regular interaction, the misunderstandings could possibly have been resolved earlier,” he said.
He maintained that he had no personal conflict with the legal fraternity and described several lawyers who have criticised him as long-standing friends and professional colleagues.
Says Removal Is Government’s Prerogative
On demands for his removal, Kumar said the appointment or discontinuation of an Advocate General was the prerogative of the State Government and its Council of Ministers.
He disclosed that he had offered to step down after the allegations emerged, but that Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma had not accepted his resignation.
“If the Government is not satisfied with my services, it has every right to disengage me. I am a professional lawyer, and the Government is my client. I will accept its decision gracefully,” he said.
Kumar welcomed the two-week period sought by the State Government to examine the dispute, saying it would give all sides an opportunity to introspect and verify the allegations.
He also invited the Bar associations and the media to produce specific evidence of any case in which he allegedly misused his position, made an unauthorised appointment or caused an improper payment.
“Transparency and probity are essential when one holds public office. I am ready to answer every question and place the relevant records before the appropriate authority,” the Advocate General said.
