Back
Urges Meghalaya Bars to Withdraw Resolution Against Advocate General
The has intervened in a deepening professional controversy in Meghalaya, urging two local bar bodies to withdraw a that seeks action against Advocate General over remarks he made during High Court proceedings. The SCBA said in a statement that the resolution was "" because Kumar’s submissions were made in a matter already pending before the , and that punishing him for those submissions could "further escalate the controversy." The intervention highlights tensions between bar associations’ and the appearing before courts, while also exposing persistent concerns about the safety of women legal professionals.
Background: A Complaint of Harassment and Police Inaction
The controversy has its origins in an incident involving a woman law intern in Shillong. According to accounts that emerged during proceedings before the , the intern alleged that she was harassed inside the chamber of a senior member of the Bar, who then offered her Rs 500 to keep silent. Intimidated, she approached an NGO through her brother, leading to the registration of an FIR.
The matter later took a dramatic turn when an advocate who had been accused of molesting the law intern was allegedly assaulted and publicly paraded in Shillong. When the High Court examined the case, it reportedly expressed concern that police authorities had failed to intervene despite being present at the scene. The court sought a response from the on the actions taken.
It was during these that Advocate General appeared for the State and made submissions that would trigger the bar bodies' ire. Kumar informed the court of the police actions taken in the case, and then 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. He is also reported to have stated that the Bar, including himself, had failed to protect its female members.
For many in the legal community, the remarks were an acknowledgment of . But for the Bar Association and the , they were evidently perceived as a public indictment. The two associations convened an in the Advocate General’s absence and passed a that effectively and called for his .
SCBA’s Position: Let the Court Process Continue
The , however, has taken a firm and different view. In a statement released after the controversy broke, the SCBA said the context in which Kumar’s remarks were made needed to be taken into account. Kumar, it noted, was appearing as Advocate General before the High Court in a case already under judicial consideration. The submissions were not off-the-cuff remarks outside the courtroom; they were part of the State’s response to the court’s queries about police action and the broader issue of safety.
Quoting from its statement: “Since these submissions were made during in a matter already before the , seeking action against the Advocate General for those submissions was .” The SCBA also expressed concern that the resolution could further escalate the controversy, rather than resolving it.
The SCBA did not dismiss the underlying issue of women’s safety. On the contrary, it called for the associations to withdraw the resolution and “work towards an through which women advocates and law interns may fearlessly raise their grievances and seek appropriate redressal.” It concluded: “The safety and dignity of every member of the legal profession must remain a of the Bar.”
Legal Analysis: Advocacy, Accountability, and the Boundaries of Bar Discipline
The SCBA’s intervention raises an important doctrinal point: what is the proper scope of a bar association’s disciplinary response to statements made in court? Lawyers enjoy significant latitude in making submissions before judicial authorities. Those submissions are part of a formal record and are subject to the court’s control. If a lawyer makes intemperate or inaccurate remarks, remedies such as withdrawal, correction, or are available through judicial channels. A bar association’s resort to expulsion, by contrast, is an extraordinary measure typically reserved for unrelated to advocacy.
Here, Kumar’s remarks—that women lawyers and interns deserved equal protection—were not abusive, defamatory, or scurrilous. They were, in effect, an expression of concern for the safety of a vulnerable section of the profession. Even if some members of the Bar found them unpalatable, the remedy was not to punish the messenger. The SCBA’s statement implicitly recognizes that the question of what the Bar has or has not done to protect women is itself a matter that the High Court is seized of. By acting outside the judicial framework, the local bar bodies risked creating the impression that they were more concerned with shielding senior members than with addressing the allegations.
One woman lawyer in the region described the bar bodies’ response as a case of “,” saying the associations appeared “concerned chiefly with protecting one of their own, the strong and powerful, rather than the young and naive.” That observation captures the mood of many legal professionals following the episode. The sequence of events, she added, raised questions about whether the associations were prepared to confront the deeper issue of women’s safety inside court premises or preferred to close ranks.
Impact on the Profession: Building Institutional Trust
Beyond the immediate controversy, the episode has broader implications for how legal institutions respond to allegations of sexual harassment and gender-based violence. The report of an intern being harassed in a lawyer’s chamber and then offered money to stay silent is a stark reminder that courtrooms and chambers are not always safe spaces for women. The additional fact that a man accused of molesting the intern was allegedly assaulted and paraded in public complicates the narrative, but it does not diminish the need for systemic reform.
The SCBA’s call for a confidential grievance mechanism is significant. Many women in the legal profession, particularly junior advocates and interns, are hesitant to report harassment for fear of retaliation, social stigma, or professional ruin. An institutional mechanism that allows grievances to be raised without fear is essential. The SCBA has now placed the spotlight back on the need for such mechanisms, not just in Meghalaya but in every Bar across the country.
At the same time, the SCBA’s position is a reminder that bar associations have a responsibility to model the very behavior they seek to promote. If bar leaders respond to criticism—even uncomfortable criticism—by seeking to expel the critic, they may undermine the culture of accountability that legal professionals want to see. The call to withdraw the resolution is, in effect, a call for restraint and institutional maturity.
Conclusion
The dispute between the Advocate General and the two Meghalaya bar associations is far from resolved. The High Court continues to examine the underlying incidents, and the bar bodies have yet to announce whether they will heed the SCBA’s appeal. Yet the SCBA has clarified an important principle: statements made in the course of cannot be plucked out of context and turned into instruments of professional retaliation. If the resolution stands, it could set a dangerous precedent for bar associations elsewhere, deterring advocates from speaking candidly on sensitive issues in court.
The larger lesson may be more urgent. As the SCBA put it, the safety and dignity of every member of the legal profession is a . That responsibility lies not only with the police, the judiciary, or the . It lies with the Bar itself. The real test for bar associations, in Meghalaya and across India, will be whether they can create an environment where women advocates and law interns do not have to depend on the courage of a or the intervention of a court to be safe at work.
