Back
's Remarks to Bar Spark Protests; Meghalaya Lawyers Demand His Removal
In an unprecedented show of collective action, lawyers across Meghalaya took to the streets of Shillong on Thursday, demanding the immediate removal of State Advocate General . The protest, jointly organised by the Bar Association and the , drew support from bar bodies across the state, including those from Garo Hills and Jaintia Hills. Carrying placards reading “Amit Go Back” and “Stop Looting”, the lawyers marched from the High Court premises to the Secretariat, burning an effigy of the Advocate General and vowing to escalate the agitation unless their demand is met.
The confrontation marks the sharpest rupture between the state’s legal fraternity and its top law officer in recent memory. It stems from remarks made by Kumar during a suo motu proceeding in the High Court concerning the safety and dignity of women lawyers and law interns—remarks that the bar associations contend cast the entire legal fraternity in a derogatory light.
The Spark: A Comment in Court
The controversy traces back to a case involving a sexual harassment complaint filed by a woman law intern against a senior advocate. During the hearing, Kumar is reported to have said that there were “many such cases” within the legal fraternity in Shillong. The bar associations, after being approached for details, stated that they were unaware of additional incidents and accused the Advocate General of making sweeping allegations without evidence. The associations passed resolutions on condemning what they termed “” against the Bar and its members.
The separately clarified that it had received a complaint from the intern and assured that appropriate legal action would follow. But the damage to the relationship between Kumar and the bar bodies had already been done.
Escalation: Resolutions, Ultimatum, and a Rejected Intervention
Following the resolution, the Bar Association and removed Kumar’s name from their rolls and declared that their members would no longer recognise him as Advocate General. They issued a one-week ultimatum to Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma to formally remove Kumar from the post.
The Bar Association (SCBA) attempted to mediate, urging the Meghalaya bar bodies to reconsider and withdraw their resolution. The SCBA argued that Kumar’s remarks should be viewed in the context of judicial proceedings concerning the safety of women advocates. The Meghalaya bodies, however, rejected the intervention outright, asserting that the SCBA had no business interfering in their internal affairs. “Our Bar, Our Home,” read one banner carried during Thursday’s march—a pointed rebuff to any outside influence.
Government’s Stance: ‘Lucky’ to Have Kumar
The state government’s response to the bar associations’ demand has only deepened the impasse. On , Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma publicly backed his Advocate General, stating that Meghalaya was “very lucky” to have . The Chief Minister highlighted Kumar’s expertise in advising the government on complex legal matters and noted that he could have chosen a lucrative private practice in Delhi but instead opted to serve the state.
Bar associations were quick to take umbrage. , secretary-general of the High Court Bar Association, told reporters that the Chief Minister’s remarks were “very hurtful”. “The saddest part is after we wrote a letter to the Chief Minister demanding removal of Kumar, highlighting our grievances, we were not even called. Instead of replying to us, the CM replied through Mr Kumar himself. He said he regrets but did not apologise,” Gautam said.
The phrase “lucky” became a recurring motif in Thursday’s protest. One placard read “We Are Not Lucky”, while another depicted Kumar wearing a crown labelled “lucky”. The lawyers made clear that their grievance was not about Kumar being from outside the state—slogans such as “Amit Go Back” were not a reflection of regional bias, they insisted—but about his conduct and the manner in which he had allegedly undermined the dignity of the local legal profession.
The Protest: A Historic Show of Strength
Thursday’s march was described by participants as the largest street protest ever staged by lawyers in Meghalaya. The procession wound from the High Court Bar Association office through Civil Point at Lower Lachumiere and back to the Secretariat. Demonstrators carried banners demanding “ Step Down” and “Cease Your Defamatory Remarks Against the Bar Associations”. An effigy of the Advocate General was set ablaze, drawing cheers from the gathered advocates.
, secretary of the , said the protest was necessitated by the government’s failure to take their representations seriously. “Our concerns have not received adequate consideration. The Chief Minister’s praise of the Advocate General has added to our dissatisfaction,” he said.
Beyond the Remarks: Allegations of Nepotism and Expenditure
The dispute has widened beyond Kumar’s courtroom comments. Bar associations have raised serious objections to the engagement of outside lawyers from Delhi to represent the state in various courts and tribunals, even in what they described as “small matters”. They allege that Kumar’s entire chamber in Delhi is being run using state resources, with junior lawyers who are not even members of the local bar regularly appearing for the state—depriving Meghalaya-based advocates of opportunities.
The most inflammatory charge is that Kumar appointed his own son as a state panel advocate in the . “The amount of money spent not just on Mr but his lawyers is huge,” said , an advocate who addressed the media. “It’s not that we don’t have great seniors in Shillong. Shillong Bar is one of the oldest bars in the country.”
In response to these concerns, the associations have filed (RTI) applications seeking details of all appointments and fee structures. “We have filed RTIs. There is a 30-day period. If we do not get replies in time, we will take another legal course,” warned.
Legal Implications and the Way Forward
The standoff raises important questions about the relationship between state governments and their law officers, particularly in smaller jurisdictions where local bar associations wield significant influence. While the Advocate General is a whose tenure is at the pleasure of the government, sustained opposition from the bar can undermine the officer’s effectiveness in court and erode the credibility of the state’s legal machinery.
The bar associations have made clear that they expect action within the one-week deadline issued to the Chief Minister. With the government publicly backing Kumar, the next logical step could be a or a in the High Court. The associations have indicated that further steps—potentially including legal action—will be decided after collective consultations.
The , for its part, has not yet taken a formal position on the removal demand, though it has distanced itself from the initial controversy by promising action on the sexual harassment complaint.
For legal professionals across the country, the Meghalaya episode serves as a case study in how public remarks by law officers can catalyse mobilisation within the bar, and how the balance of power between elected governments and the legal community can shift when core questions of dignity and professional opportunity are at stake.
Conclusion
As the one-week deadline given to Chief Minister Sangma approaches, all eyes are on Shillong. The lawyers have made their stand clear: they will not accept a situation where they believe the Advocate General has defamed the very fraternity he is meant to represent, while allegedly operating a patronage network that sidelines local talent. Whether the government will yield to the pressure, or whether the bar will escalate further, remains to be seen. What is certain is that the legal fraternity of Meghalaya has spoken with a force that has not been seen before—and they are demanding to be heard.
