For Meghalaya’s legal fraternity, August 27, 2026, will likely be remembered as a defining day. For what lawyers described as the first time in the history of the state, more than 1,000 lawyers marched through the streets of Shillong, demanding the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar. Lawyers and bar associations in other parts of Meghalaya also extended their solidarity through court boycotts, demonstrations and sit-ins.
The protest was led by the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association, but it was by no means confined to Shillong. Bar associations from Garo Hills, Jaintia Hills and other districts supported the agitation. In Tura, lawyers reportedly boycotted court work, while demonstrations and sit-ins were held in several locations across Garo Hills.
This statewide character is perhaps the most significant aspect of the confrontation. But what led to the statewide protest?
CLICK TO WATCH THE VIDEOThe controversy stems from submissions made by Advocate General Amit Kumar during proceedings before the Meghalaya High Court concerning the alleged sexual harassment of a woman law intern by a senior advocate and the subsequent assault and public parading of that advocate.
During the proceedings, Amit Kumar reportedly referred to the safety of women lawyers and interns and said there were other instances of sexual harassment within Shillong’s legal fraternity.
The bar associations strongly objected.
They said they were unaware of the additional cases referred to and that Kumar had not provided details when asked. They argued that such statements unfairly portrayed Meghalaya’s legal fraternity.
Although Kumar reportedly expressed regret over how his remarks were interpreted, saying that he intended to highlight institutional shortcomings, the Bar did not consider the expression of regret to be an adequate apology.
The issue escalated rapidly.
The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association removed Kumar from their rolls and demanded that the State Government remove him as Advocate General.
The Supreme Court Bar Association subsequently urged the Meghalaya associations to reconsider their resolution, arguing that Kumar’s submissions should be viewed in the context of proceedings already before the High Court. The Meghalaya associations, however, maintained their position.
Why has the Bar gone beyond the original controversy?
The present agitation is no longer only about Kumar’s courtroom remarks.
The lawyers have raised wider concerns about the functioning of the Advocate General’s office. Among their allegations are the engagement of lawyers from outside Meghalaya for state matters, questions surrounding public expenditure on such legal representation and the appointment of Kumar’s son as a state panel advocate before the Supreme Court.
These are serious allegations. However, they remain allegations raised by the protesting lawyers and would need to be established through official records and due process.
The associations have said they have filed RTI applications seeking details of expenditure and appointments.
There is also an unmistakable local sentiment behind the protest: Meghalaya has a large and experienced legal fraternity, and many lawyers believe local advocates should receive greater opportunities to represent the State.
This is why the controversy has gradually shifted from the question of “What did the Advocate General say?” to a much larger one:
“How should Meghalaya’s legal affairs be conducted, and what place should the State’s own lawyers have in that system?”
The situation became more intense after Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma publicly defended Amit Kumar.
The Chief Minister praised Kumar’s contribution to the State, saying he had guided the Government on crucial legal matters, helped departments overcome legal difficulties and dedicated his time to Meghalaya despite having opportunities to practise independently in Delhi and before the Supreme Court.
From the Government’s perspective, the message was clear: Kumar’s professional contribution outweighs the present controversy.
But the statement appears to have deeply offended the Bar.
Another battle is taking place alongside the confrontation with the Government—the dispute with sections of the media.
The Bar has objected to reporting which, according to the associations, created a misleading impression that lawyers were opposing Amit Kumar because he had supported or spoken for a woman law intern.
The lawyers strongly reject that characterisation.
Their position is that their objection concerns Kumar’s alleged remarks about the Bar, his references to other alleged sexual-harassment cases, and wider concerns regarding the functioning of his office.
The distinction is important.
A complex institutional dispute can easily be reduced to a simple headline. If the lawyers’ position was inaccurately represented, they have a legitimate right to seek correction and clarification.
At the same time, newspapers have a legitimate democratic responsibility to scrutinise lawyers, the Government and the Advocate General.
The danger arises when criticism of reporting develops into an institutional confrontation between the Bar and the press.
The image of lawyers marching through Shillong in their professional attire is powerful. When lawyers themselves say this is the first time in Meghalaya’s history that they have taken their protest to the streets on such a scale, the Government cannot treat the development as an ordinary disagreement.
At the same time, the Bar carries its own responsibility.
The protest must remain peaceful, fact-based and consistent with the dignity expected of the legal profession.
Questions regarding outside lawyers, appointments and expenditure can be answered through transparent records. Questions about Amit Kumar’s conduct can be examined on the basis of facts rather than through competing public narratives.
But in all this, the real case, which was the alleged sexual harassment of an intern, is lost. The issue that an advocate was paraded through the streets by a vigilante group that took the law in its hand was never condemned by these protesting lawyers.
The lawyers’ concerns may be genuine, and the protest shows that the fraternity probably reached the tipping point. But being lawyers, should they not follow the legal system to prove their allegations? Shouldn’t they have challenged Amit Kumar’s claim legally? That would have been more impactful than going for the jugular. That’s something they should think about.
WATCH MORE VIDEOS
