Shillong, October 16: The Shillong Bar Association and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association have decided to intensify their agitation against the Meghalaya government’s alleged indifference to their demand for the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar, while also moving the court against a government notification granting additional powers to the AG in the empanelment of state counsels.
The two Bar associations have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the state government’s September 16 notification implementing the Meghalaya Panel Advocate (Empanelment & Engagement) Guidelines, 2026, alleging that the guidelines give sweeping powers to the Advocate General.
Briefing reporters following a general body meeting on Friday, Shillong Bar Association Assistant Secretary N Shyambor Singh Marpna said members unanimously resolved to continue their agitation until their demands are addressed. “We called a general body meeting to apprise about the situation and how far we have gone with the agitation. We listened to all members on how the agitation should proceed. It was unanimously decided we will continue,” he said. Marpna recalled that the Bar associations had initially met Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong on September 2, during which an assurance was given that the Advocate General would not appear in court for two weeks. He said the assurance was initially honoured.
However, before the expiry of the period, Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma invited representatives of the associations to his residence on September 16 and sought additional time until October 7 to examine their grievances. “Before expiry, the Chief Minister called us to his residence on September 16 and in same tone said he will look into the matter. He sought two weeks till October 7. We agreed and paused our abstention,” he said.
Marpna alleged that the understanding was subsequently violated when the Advocate General resumed appearing before the High Court and other courts. “After September 16, Amit Kumar appeared not only in High Court but in other courts also, completely violating the arrangement made with the CM and us. So on September 30, we called a meeting and decided to switch back to abstention,” he said.
He further alleged that the government had issued the Meghalaya Panel Advocate Guidelines, 2026, on September 16, the same day the Bar representatives met the Chief Minister. “We came to know much later that on September 16 itself the government notified the Meghalaya Panel Advocate Guidelines, 2026. If you go through it, it gives full power to AG to empanel, de-empanel or remove anyone from the panel. We don’t know the motive,” Marpna said.
He informed that the associations had filed a PIL two days earlier, challenging the notification and other empanelment notifications, while seeking a fair, transparent and merit-based procedure for the appointment of state counsels. The petition also seeks information relating to an RTI application filed on August 10, 2026. “We have filed a PIL challenging the notification and other empanelment notifications. Since it is sub judice we will not go into depth,” he said.
Shillong Bar Association Secretary T L Jyrwa said the associations were compelled to abstain from work because of growing frustration over the government’s handling of their grievances. “One person can appoint and misuse office by discarding competency and availability of local lawyers. Despite genuine grievance to the government, we were compelled to go for abstention,” he said.
Jyrwa informed that the joint executive committees of both associations met on October 9 and decided to change the mode of protest in the interest of the courts, litigants and other stakeholders. “After more than six days of abstention 2.0, we reviewed for the interest of courts and all stakeholders. We decided to withdraw abstention and look for a sustainable mode. Agitation has not been called off, only mode changed. Members are united as it is for the general cause of Bar and public funds are involved,” he said. He said the next phase of agitation would be announced after the Puja vacation when the courts reopen.
Meanwhile, the two Bar associations alleged that the decision concerning the Advocate General appeared to be entirely under the control of Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma, describing the situation as a “one man’s show.”
Jyrwa claimed that while the Law Minister and Deputy Chief Minister had acknowledged their concerns, neither had defended the Advocate General in the manner the Chief Minister had. “What transpired from all meetings we had is everything is under control of the Chief Minister. When we met the Law Minister, he never showed that Amit Kumar is indispensable. When we met Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong, they showed concern but never defended Amit Kumar like what CM did,” he alleged.
Referring to the September 16 meeting, Jyrwa said the Chief Minister had expressed concern that removing Kumar would create a vacuum in the state’s legal affairs. “When we met CM on September 16, he stated if we remove Amit Kumar there will be a vacuum in state legal affairs. That clearly sums up this is all a one man’s show,” he said.
Jyrwa also questioned the Chief Minister’s defence of the Advocate General, referring to Sangma’s recent remarks about his family’s longstanding relationship with Kumar. “In his recent press briefing, CM boldly claimed his relation with Amit Kumar goes very long, goes back when his late father was active as politician and that Amit Kumar is like a family friend. So we understand where his loyalty lies, whether towards state interest or for some other interest,” he alleged.
Responding to the Chief Minister’s statement that the Advocate General could not be removed overnight, Jyrwa clarified that the Bar associations had never expected an immediate decision but wanted the government to genuinely examine their grievances. “We all understand removing a person from constitutional post will not be one-day or week’s affair but at least we expect genuine appreciation towards our demand. Dialogue was offered by Deputy CM followed by CM on September 16, we expect genuine examination of grievances,” he said.
He maintained that the associations were now doubtful about the government’s seriousness in addressing the issue. “We understand it will not be easy but the government should at least take it seriously when they are examining this matter. Now it is very difficult for us to understand whether the government is really going to go for it. If not, our agitation is still on. As long as demand is not met, agitation will continue,” Jyrwa asserted.
On another front, the Shillong Bar Association has also decided to pursue all available legal remedies after its RTI application seeking details of government expenditure on the office of the Advocate General was rejected. The association had filed the RTI application on August 10, 2026, but the Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information, citing exemptions under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act.
Marpna questioned the rejection, arguing that exemptions relating to personal information and other protected matters are not absolute when larger public interest is involved. “As per personal information, these exceptions are also not absolute exceptions. If it outweighs the public interest, then you have to give that information. So it does affect us, so they have to give us that information,” he said.
Jyrwa confirmed that the association had already filed a first appeal against the rejection and was awaiting a response from the appellate authority. “After the denial of the RTI report, we have taken further steps and that is we have filed an appeal that is still pending. As you know, there is a procedure laid down in the RTI law and there are time limits given to decide on the application or the appeal thereafter,” he said.
Explaining the next course of action, Marpna said the association would approach the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) if the first appeal failed and, if necessary, move the High Court after exhausting the available remedies. “Again if refused, whatever the reasons they cite, we have another forum which is the CIC and then we will file an appeal before the CIC. So we have to exhaust those remedies and then finally after that, if it is again refused by the CIC, then the other forum is before the High Court,” he said.
The associations reiterated that although they had temporarily withdrawn their abstention from court proceedings, their agitation had not been called off and would continue in a more sustainable form until their demands were addressed.
