Shillong, October 31: Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar on Saturday strongly refuted allegations of charging excessive legal fees in arbitration cases involving the state government, maintaining that the fees were justified by the complexity of the proceedings, extensive legal work and substantial financial claims involved.
In an 11-page press statement issued in response to allegations made by advocate Kishore Ch. Gautam and others on October 30, Kumar described the accusations as false and misleading, alleging that the campaign against him was motivated by personal grievances rather than genuine concern for public funds. The controversy arose after Gautam and others displayed legal fee bills relating to proceedings between the Public Works Department (National Highways), Government of Meghalaya, and contractors M/s BSC-C&C JV and M/s BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd. They alleged that Kumar had charged Rs 1.50 lakh per appearance before the Commercial Court against the prescribed fee of Rs 20,000 and had misled the public in his earlier statement issued on September 3, 2026.
Rejecting the allegations, Kumar clarified that the Law Department’s Office Memorandum dated October 11, 2018, which prescribes a monthly retaining fee of Rs 50,000 and Rs 20,000 per appearance before the High Court, does not specifically cover complex arbitration proceedings. He pointed out that the memorandum permits fees for professional work outside the prescribed schedule to be mutually determined by the Law Department in consultation with the Advocate General.
According to Kumar, three arbitration cases involving BSC-C&C JV, BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd and Marbaniang Projects Pvt. Ltd. concerned major infrastructure projects with claims totalling approximately Rs 1,588 crore. Including the interest claimed, the state’s potential liability could have reached around Rs 1,788 crore as of October 31, 2026.
Explaining the nature of the cases, Kumar said the arbitration involving BSC-C&C JV arose from the two-laning of the Shillong-Nongstoin section of NH-44 and the Nongstoin-Rongjeng-Tura road under the Special Accelerated Road Development Programme for North East (SARDP-NE). He stated that the original contract value of Rs 1,303.83 crore had increased to Rs 2,406.46 crore through revised cost estimates, while the contractor’s claims involved approximately 11,000 pages of documents and nearly 80 arbitration hearings.
Kumar further maintained that his professional fee of Rs 1.50 lakh per appearance had been disclosed in writing to the Chief Engineer (National Highways) on August 19, 2019, and that the matter was subsequently referred to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for examination. He said the ministry sought justification for the fee on August 31, 2021, following which he submitted a detailed explanation on September 8, 2021, outlining the extensive legal work required in the proceedings.
Defending the fees charged before the Commercial Court, Kumar argued that such proceedings were an extension of the arbitration disputes and involved equally complex legal issues. He cited a case in which the state challenged an interim arbitration award directing payment of approximately Rs 75 crore, which was stayed by the Commercial Court on October 29, 2021. “The fee follows the stakes and the work in the case, not the level of the court,” Kumar stated.
The Advocate General also disclosed that departmental records showed legal fees amounting to Rs 1,35,23,000 had been claimed, of which Rs 54,45,000 had been paid, while Rs 80,78,000 remained unpaid.
Highlighting the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, Kumar claimed that the state’s legal team had successfully defended public funds by securing the rejection of claims amounting to approximately Rs 1,470 crore. He said the arbitration tribunal rejected a delay claim of Rs 313 crore, along with interest, in the BSC-C&C JV case.
In the arbitration cases involving BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd and Marbaniang Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kumar stated that all claims against the state were dismissed, while the government was awarded approximately Rs 13 crore, besides interest, mesne profits and costs. He argued that the legal fees paid to lawyers representing the government constituted only a small fraction of the financial claims successfully defended in the proceedings.
Meanwhile, Kumar questioned why Gautam had allegedly failed to disclose his professional involvement as counsel representing the contractors in several proceedings against the state government. According to him, court records showed that Gautam had appeared for BSC-C&C JV and BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd in arbitration-related proceedings before the Meghalaya High Court.
The Advocate General also referred to criminal investigations and blacklisting proceedings involving BSC-C&C JV and its partners. He stated that an FIR was registered at Sardar Police Station on September 10, 2024, following a complaint by the Chief Engineer (National Highways) concerning alleged irregularities involving the contractor and certain officials.
Kumar said the department blacklisted the joint venture and its partners for five years on December 3, 2024, and that the Meghalaya High Court upheld the decision on December 17, 2025. He added that a Division Bench dismissed an appeal challenging the blacklisting on February 19, 2026, while the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The Advocate General further alleged that the campaign against him was connected to professional disputes and personal grievances involving Gautam and his associates.
Referring to the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case, Kumar said he had advised that an explanation be sought from the Special Public Prosecutor concerning an error in an order discharging an accused under the Arms Act. He claimed that the Special Public Prosecutor was Gautam’s brother and alleged that the circumstances indicated possible personal animosity behind the allegations. Kumar also accused certain individuals of misusing the platform of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association to pursue personal interests under the guise of safeguarding public money.
Expressing concern over the alleged disclosure of his personal financial information during the October 30 press conference, Kumar claimed that Gautam had publicly displayed his bank account details, IFSC code and PAN, besides referring to members of his family. He maintained that such disclosures served no legitimate public purpose and amounted to an invasion of his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Advocate General warned that he would pursue available legal remedies against those responsible for the alleged breach of privacy and defamatory statements. He also referred to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to defamation, stating that allegations circulated through the media and online platforms could have legal consequences.
Reiterating his position, Kumar maintained that the allegations against him were baseless and that the professional fees charged in the arbitration proceedings were justified by the complexity of the cases, the extensive legal work undertaken and the substantial public funds involved. The allegations and counter-allegations remain disputed, with the Advocate General’s statement presenting his response to the accusations raised by Gautam and others.
