SCBA Urges Meghalaya Bar Associations to Withdraw Joint Resolution Against Advocate General Amit Kumar

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has formally called upon the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association to reconsider and withdraw their joint resolution seeking the expulsion of Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar. In a resolution adopted on August 14, the SCBA emphasised that the Advocate General’s remarks concerning the safety of women lawyers were made in the context of judicial proceedings and that any move to penalise him for those submissions is unwarranted. The development highlights an ongoing tension between bar bodies over the boundaries of professional conduct and the protection of women in the legal profession.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy erupted earlier this month when the two Meghalaya-based bar associations passed a joint resolution on August 11, expelling Amit Kumar from their membership rolls and demanding his removal as Advocate General. The resolution was triggered by remarks attributed to Kumar in which he allegedly stated that bar associations had failed to provide a safe environment for women lawyers. The associations took strong exception to the comment, viewing it as an attack on the legal fraternity’s efforts to ensure workplace safety.

However, the SCBA, in its resolution, pointed out that the context of those remarks must be carefully examined. Kumar, while appearing as Advocate General before the Meghalaya High Court, was addressing allegations raised by a woman law intern against a senior member of the Bar. During the proceedings, he informed the court about the steps taken in the matter and submitted that, while the safety of members of the Bar must be protected, equal attention must be given to the safety and dignity of women advocates and law interns.

SCBA’s Intervention and Rationale

The SCBA’s resolution, dated August 14, explicitly notes that the Advocate General’s statement was an acknowledgement of the need to ensure safe and dignified spaces for women lawyers and law interns. It underscores that the remarks were made during judicial proceedings before the Meghalaya High Court, which was already dealing with the issue. The SCBA observed:

“Seeking action against the Advocate General for submissions made during judicial proceedings was ‘unwarranted’ and could aggravate the dispute.”

The SCBA further cautioned that because the matter is already under judicial consideration, any extrajudicial action against the Advocate General would undermine the authority of the court and risk escalating the conflict. The association therefore urged the Meghalaya bar bodies to withdraw their joint resolution and instead work towards establishing an effective and confidential mechanism through which women advocates and law interns can raise grievances without fear and seek appropriate redressal.

In a strong statement, the SCBA reminded the legal community that “the safety and dignity of every member of the legal profession must remain a collective responsibility of the Bar.”

Legal Implications for Professional Conduct

The dispute raises several important questions about the role and responsibilities of bar associations when it comes to holding government law officers accountable for their statements in court. Advocates, including Advocate Generals, enjoy immunity for words spoken in the course of judicial proceedings under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution read with the Advocates Act, 1961. The bar associations’ resolution, if enforced, could infringe upon that protection and set a concerning precedent.

Legal experts argue that the issue also touches upon the independence of the Bar. An Advocate General is both a law officer of the state and a member of the legal profession. While bar associations have the power to discipline members for professional misconduct, such disciplinary action must not be used as a tool to silence legitimate submissions made in court. The SCBA’s resolution reiterates this principle, noting that the judicial process is the appropriate forum for evaluating the correctness of statements made in court.

Broader Impact on Women’s Safety and the Legal Profession

Beyond the immediate dispute, the incident underscores a systemic problem: the lack of safe and confidential channels for women lawyers and law interns to report harassment or unsafe working conditions. The SCBA has called on bar associations to shift their focus from punitive action against individuals to the creation of robust internal mechanisms. This aligns with recent efforts by the Bar Council of India and various state bar councils to mandate grievance committees in law firms and legal offices.

For the legal community in Meghalaya, the confrontation between the Advocate General and local bar bodies could have lasting effects. If the resolution stands without reconsideration, it may discourage law officers from speaking candidly about sensitive issues such as gender safety in future proceedings. On the other hand, a withdrawal of the resolution could pave the way for constructive dialogue on improving working conditions for women in the legal field, which remains a pressing concern nationwide.

Conclusion

The SCBA’s appeal serves as a reminder that the legal profession functions best when differences are resolved through respect for judicial processes and institutional integrity. As the Meghalaya bar bodies deliberate on the next steps, the wider legal community will be watching closely. The core message from the national body is clear: protecting the dignity and safety of every lawyer and intern is a shared responsibility, and penalising an Advocate General for raising the issue in court only distracts from the real challenge. Whether the local associations heed the call remains to be seen, but the SCBA has set a strong precedent for how such disputes should be addressed within the framework of the law.