The dispute over Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar has escalated into a deep rift within the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, after the president publicly rejected a call for a court boycott and criticized the secretary’s unilateral actions.
In a letter dated October 1, President KS Kynjing expressed “serious dissatisfaction” with communications, press statements and decisions taken in the name of the association without approval from its executive committee. He accused Secretary Kishore Ch Gautam of writing to the Supreme Court Bar Association on August 17 about the Advocate General issue before presenting the matter to the committee, and of issuing press releases and holding a press conference without prior authorization.
The flashpoint was a joint meeting of the High Court Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association on September 30, when members voted to boycott courts and tribunals across Meghalaya from October 1. Kynjing deemed the decision “highly illegal,” citing the Supreme Court’s 2003 judgment in Ex‑Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, which holds that lawyers cannot strike or boycott courts and that bar associations lack the authority to sanction such actions. He also demanded the removal of “Go Back Amit Kumar” banners displayed on the High Court premises without committee approval.
The core of the conflict is the bar’s demand that Kumar be removed as Advocate General. While the associations have called for his removal from their rolls and urged the state government to dismiss him, Kumar has continued to serve. Kynjing reminded that the government has the prerogative to appoint the Advocate General and that bar dissatisfaction does not grant the right to halt court proceedings. He noted Kumar’s apology on August 13 and urged lawyers to refrain from rallies, strikes or boycotts that could disrupt justice administration. The internal disagreement now highlights questions about who holds authority to speak and act on behalf of the High Court Bar Association.
