Lawyers in Shillong hold protest march demanding removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar

Lawyers in Shillong on Thursday staged a major protest demanding the removal of Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar.

The Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association in a resolution passed earlier this month had asked the State government to remove Kumar following his statement that the bar bodies have failed to protect women lawyers.

However, the government declined to accede to the bar bodies' request with Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma reportedly stating that the State was lucky to have Kumar as its Advocate General.

Following the government’s response, the lawyers intensified their protest on Thursday and marched on the streets demanding Kumar's removal.

They burnt Kumar's effigy and also carried placards telling him to return to his law practice in Delhi.

"Amit Kumar, Go Back! Go Back!," the lawyers shouted.

"Our Bar, Our Home - Amit Kumar, Stop Defaming It," a banner carried by the lawyers read.

The controversy stemmed from certain submissions made by Kumar before the Meghalaya High Court in a suo motu case related to the alleged physical assault and public parading of an advocate in Shillong. The advocate had earlier been accused of molesting a law intern.

Following the Advocate General's statement that the bar bodies had failed to protect women lawyers, the two bar associations passed a joint resolution expelling Kumar from their rolls and called for his removal. They said Kumar had failed to provide any material to substantiate his claims.

Since then, the bar bodies' accusations against Kumar have not remained limited to his submissions before Court. They have also objected to the engagement of lawyers outside the State by the Advocate General's office.

On August 14, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had expressed concern over the Shillong bar bodies' resolution against Kumar and called for its withdrawal. It said that the safety and dignity of every member of the legal profession must remain a collective responsibility of the bar.

In response, the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association told SCBA to refrain from interfering in their internal affairs. They also accused Kumar of using his clout to sell a false narrative.

"We have no desire to engage in a confrontation with the SCBA. At the same time, we wish to make it unequivocally clear that the members of our bar associations will not be intimidated, pressured, bullied or compelled to abandon a decision democratically taken by our members merely because the person affected by that decision is lobbying in your corridors," the bar bodies told SCBA.