Shillong, Oct 7 — Advocates from across Meghalaya on Wednesday intensified their agitation demanding the removal of state Advocate General Amit Kumar, alleging that he continued to appear before courts despite an assurance from the state government that he would not do so.
A large number of lawyers representing bar associations from different districts participated in a rally in Shillong as part of the ongoing protest against Kumar.
Addressing the media after the rally, lawyer Kishore Gautam said representatives of the legal fraternity had earlier met Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma, following which they were assured that Kumar would not appear before the Meghalaya High Court or any other court or tribunal in the state.
Gautam, however, alleged that Kumar continued to appear before the High Court as well as trial courts despite the assurance.
"After the meeting with the Chief Minister, an assurance was once again given to us that Mr Amit Kumar would not appear in the High Court or any of the courts or tribunals in the state of Meghalaya," he said.
Gautam said he subsequently informed the Chief Minister through WhatsApp messages and SMS about Kumar's alleged appearances after receiving Sangma's contact details during their earlier meeting.
He said the lawyers were left with no option but to resume their boycott of court proceedings.
"Our demand is the same: we want the removal of Mr Amit Kumar," Gautam said, questioning why no concrete action had been taken despite repeated representations and meetings with the government.
The lawyers had earlier announced a statewide boycott of judicial work from October 1, while exempting bail matters and other urgent cases.
The boycott was launched over Kumar's continued appearances before courts, which the lawyers said were contrary to assurances given by the government.
Gautam said bar associations across Meghalaya remained united on the issue and would continue their agitation through various forms of protest.
He added that the executive committees of the High Court Bar Association and district court bar associations would meet to decide the next course of action.
The confrontation between Meghalaya's legal fraternity and Kumar has continued for several weeks.
Bar associations had earlier removed Kumar from their rolls and sought his removal as Advocate General.
Kumar, however, has maintained that the appointment of the Advocate General is the prerogative of the state government and that, as a lawyer, he remains entitled to practise.