SHILLONG, OCT 7: The Meghalaya High Court Bar Association’s ongoing protest against Advocate General Amit Kumar has widened into a transparency dispute, with the Association alleging that the state government is withholding information on public expenditure incurred on the Advocate General’s office and outstation lawyers.
High Court Bar Association Secretary General Kishore Gautam said an RTI application was filed seeking details of expenditure incurred on the Advocate General’s office and lawyers engaged from outside the state. According to him, the information was denied on the 30th day of the application, with the authorities citing Section 8 of the RTI Act. “We had filed an RTI to know how much public funds are being spent for the office of the Advocate General and the outstation lawyers. On the 30th day, they replied saying they cannot give the information under Section 8, which is absolutely not legally tenable,” Gautam said.
He said the Association has since filed an appeal against the denial. “It is clear the government is trying to shield information. It does not want the amount spent on the AG and his office to come out in public, because then people will understand why we are agitating,” he alleged.
Gautam claimed that expenditure connected with the Advocate General’s office and outstation lawyers runs into crores of rupees and is significantly higher than during the tenure of previous Advocate Generals. “A lot of money, crores and crores, is being spent for running the office of an Advocate General who comes from Delhi. Compare it with earlier Advocate Generals and you will see a very big difference,” he said.
He also questioned what he described as high expenditure on lawyers coming from outside Meghalaya, including accommodation costs. “For a small state like ours, we need not spend so much for the AG and outstation lawyers who come from outside and stay in five-star hotels,” Gautam said.
The Bar Association, he added, intends to continue pursuing the RTI matter even if its first appeal is rejected. “That information has been denied to us. We have filed an appeal which I think will also be denied, but we will keep pursuing. They cannot invoke Section 8 when public funds are involved,” he said. Gautam also referred to Kumar’s designation as a senior advocate, saying he was not a designated senior when he first came to Meghalaya and was subsequently designated from the state.
He said the Bar had earlier considered challenging the designation but did not proceed with the matter. “Now one person is holding everything at ransom. We are forced to boycott courts because of one person. The public is suffering, the legal fraternity is suffering and the government is silent,” Gautam said.
The allegations regarding expenditure and the RTI rejection are claims made by the Bar Association; the state government’s response was not included in the information provided.
