Shillong, Oct 1: The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association President, KS Kynjing has criticised his secretary, Kishore Ch Gautam for taking unilateral decisions on issues related to Advocate General(AG) Amit Kumar and also for unauthorised display of banners against the AG.
Kynjing wrote to Gautam on October 1.
Full letter below
To,
Mr. Kishore Ch. Gautam, Secretary
High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association
Shillong.
Dated:
11 October, 2026
Subject: Expression of serious dissatisfaction regarding unilateral decision,communications, press statements and conduct concerning the issue relating to the Advocate General of Meghalaya and objection to the unauthorized display of
banners in the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association Campus and removal
thereof.
Dear Sir,
I am constrained, in my capacity as President of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, to place on record my serious dissatisfaction and concern regarding certain actions taken by you in your capacity as Secretary of the Association in matters concerning the issue relating to the Advocate General of Meghalaya, Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Advocate.
It has come to my notice that a reply/communication dated 17’h August, 2026 was addressed to the Hony. Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), New Delhi without the matter first being placed before, discussed and deliberated upon by the Executive Committee of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association. Such an important matter, having a direct bearing upon the dignity, reputation and collective position of our Association, ought not to have been dealt with unilaterally by any office-bearer without prior consultation and authorisation of the Executive Committee.
I am further constrained to express my deep disapproval regarding the use of language and expressions in the said communication which, in my considered view, are unbecoming of an
office-bearer of a Bar Association and do not reflect the standards of civility, restraint and professional dignity expected of members of the legal fraternity. Whatever differences of
opinion may arise on an issue, they must be expressed in measured, respectful and dignified language, particularly when communicating with another Bar Association.
The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association represents the collective interests and dignity of its members. No individual office-bearer, however senior his or her position, should take a position or issue a communication purporting to represent the Association on a matter of such significance without a decision or authorisation of the Executive Committee.
I am equally concerned by the fact that press releases and/or statements to the media, including the holding of a press conference, appear to have been undertaken without prior consultation with or approval of the Executive Committee. Public statements made in the name of the Association necessarily carry the authority and reputation of the Association as a whole. Accordingly, such statements cannot properly be issued solely at the discretion of an
individual office-bearer, particularly when they concern a sensitive matter involving
constitutional authorities such as the office of the Advocate General, members of the legal profession or another Bar Association.
The manner in which these matters have been dealt with has, in my view, exposed the Association and its members to unnecessary controversy and has brought disrepute to the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association as a whole. The Association must at all timely conduct itself in a manner befitting the dignity of the legal profession and the institution which we represent. If for reason of your unilateral decision of sending the said reply to the SCBA, any dispute arises in connection with the said communication, subsequent press briefing and media statement, our association will not be held responsible.
The manner in which these matters have been dealt with has, in my view, exposed the Association and its members to unnecessary controversy and has brought disrepute to the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association as a whole. The Association must at all times
conduct itself in a manner befitting the dignity of the legal profession and the institution which we represent. If for reason of your unilateral decision of sending the said reply to the
SCBA, any dispute arises in connection with the said communication, subsequent press briefing and media statement, our association will not be held responsible.
That again on 30th of September, 2026 a joint meeting of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association was called by you along with the Secretary,
Shillong Bar Association, without the same being discussed with the President, High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and all other executive members. Accordingly, the said joint meeting was held on the said date without any written notice/intimation to the President or
any consultation in this regard. Further, I am astonished by the fact that a decision was taken in the said joint meeting to boycott all courts and tribunal in the state of Meghalaya with effect from October 1, 2026.
I find the said decision taken in the joint meeting held on 30th September 2026 is highly illegal for the fact that the decision to hold the joint meeting on the said date was unilateral decision and without any prior consultation of the President, High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and also for reason that such decision is against the law laid down by the Hon’ ble
Supreme Court of India It is pertinent to mention herein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Barish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, has categorically held that lawyers have no right to strike or give a call for boycott, not even a token strike, and has specifically held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit a meeting for the purpose
of considering a call for strike or boycott. Therefore, a statutory Bar Council cannot rely upon its institutional status to authorise or legitimise conduct which the Supreme Court has expressly prohibited. Here it appears many of the office-bearers/members of the State Bar
Council along with other members took part in the procession and abstained from court appearance and as such the issue has become very serious. The Court’s conclusion at paragraph 35 of the above judgment is extremely important as it states that ; “lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike.” The Court
further held that lawyers holding vakalat for clients cannot refuse to appear because of a strike/boycott call; and no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit a meeting for the purpose of considering a call for strike or boycott; and a lawyer must be free to appear in court despite a strike call; All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or
boycott; No lawyers can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out; requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored; courts are not required to adjourn cases
merely because lawyers are on strike. It is only in rarest of the rare cases where it involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench, the President of the Bar
must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before advocates decides to be absent themselves from court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final
and have to be abided by the Bar. However, the issue in hand does not involve such situation and no such permission was obtained as well.
I therefore call upon you to exercise due restraint in future and to ensure that no
communication, press release, public statement or press conference is issued or undertaken in the name of the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association on matters of importance without
first placing the matter before the Executive Committee and obtaining its considered decision/approval. If any members have any personal issue with Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
General, they may address their grievances at their personal level and should not involve the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association or do anything in the name of the association.
I would also request that the entire matter, including the communication addressed to the Secretary of the SCBA and the subsequent press statements/conference, be placed before the Executive Committee at its earliest meeting for its discussion.
I am also writing to you to place on record my serious objection to the display of banners bearing the slogan “GO BACK AMIT KUMAR” at various places within the premises/campus of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association.
It has come to my notice that the said banners have been put up without obtaining the prior permission or approval of the Executive Committee of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association or of the General Body Meeting.
Any display of banners, posters, slogans or other such material within the Association premises ought to be undertaken only with the
prior approval of the competent authority of the Association and in accordance with the decisions and rules governing the use of the Association’s premises.
The unauthorised display of such banners, particularly with a slogan of protest nature, is wholly inappropriate within the premises of the Bar Association and is likely to create an
undesirable impression among members of the Bar, the Bench, litigants and visitors. Such acts also have the potential to bring disrepute to the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and adversely affect the dignity, decorum and professional character of the Association.
That the individual or collective grievances, if any, should be raised and addressed through appropriate and duly authorised forums and procedures, rather than by unauthorised display of banners within the Association campus.
In view of the above, you are hereby requested to take immediate steps for removal of all such banners bearing the slogan “GO BACK AMIT KUMAR” from the premises of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and to ensure that no banner, poster or similar
material is displayed within the Association campus without the prior permission of the executive committee. It is further requested that you may be pleased to make an attempt not
to escalate the issue any further, in circumstances when the apology has already been tendered by Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Advocate/Advocate General vide letter dated 13.08.2026. The Government has the prerogative within the constitutional and legal framework to appoint
advocate general of the state. That choice may not please every lawyer. But dissatisfaction with the Government’s choice cannot create a right in the local Bar to paralyse court proceedings until the Government changes its decision. If that principle is accepted, any Bar
association anywhere in India could effectively dictate whom a State Government may
appoint. That would turn a professional association into an unelected appointing authority.
The Constitution certainly does not contemplate such an arrangement.
This communication is issued not with a view to create any personal confronta, but to reaffinn the principles of collective decision-making, institutional discipline, professional courtesy, the dignity of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and to ensure smooth functioning of the courts; which is essential for proper administration of justice. It is imperative that all office-bearers act within the framework of the Association and maintain the confidence and respect of its members. Further, I appeal to all members of the High Court
of Meghalaya Bar Association as well as members of other bar association to refrain from engaging themselves from holding rally, strike, boycott of court which will hamper the administration and delivery of justice and request all members to perform their duty as an
advocate in the interest of their client.
I trust that you will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves and ensure that such unilateral actions are not repeated in future.
President
High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association
Shillong
Copy To:
1. The Hon ‘ble Chief Justice, High Court of Meghalaya.
2. The Chief Minister, State of Meghalaya.
3. The Secretary, Law Department, Govt of Meghalaya.
