SHILLONG : The High Court Bar Association has accused the Meghalaya government of withholding information on expenditure incurred for Advocate General Amit Kumar and outstation lawyers, after its Right to Information (RTI) application seeking details of the spending was rejected.
Speaking on Wednesday, Secretary General of the High Court Bar Association Kishore Gautam said the RTI application was rejected on the 30th day, with the authorities citing an exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Gautam said the association had sought information on the amount of public money being spent on the office of the Advocate General and lawyers engaged from outside the state.
“We have also filed an RTI application to find out the amount of public fund being spent for the office of the Advocate General and all these outstation lawyers,” Gautam said.
He said the association received the rejection on the 30th day, when the authorities cited Section 8 as the reason for withholding the information.
Gautam questioned the legal basis for denying the information and said the association has already filed an appeal against the decision.
“We have filed an appeal. Let us see what happens. It is very clear that the government is trying to shield, the government does not want the amount of public fund being spent on the Advocate General and his office to come out,” he said.
According to Gautam, the association believes the expenditure on the Advocate General’s office and outstation lawyers is substantial.
“A lot of money is being spent for running the office of the Advocate General who comes from Delhi and crores and crores are being spent,” he alleged, adding that there was a significant difference when compared with expenditure during the tenure of previous Advocates General.
Gautam also questioned the spending on lawyers coming from outside Meghalaya, including their accommodation.
“For a state like ours, we need not spend so much just to run the office of the Advocate General and the outstation lawyers who come from outside and stay in five-star hotels,” he said.
The Bar Association has said it will continue pursuing the information through the RTI process.
Gautam said the association expects its appeal may also face rejection but maintained that it would continue with further legal and procedural steps.
“They cannot take exception of Section 8 because public funds are involved,” he said.
Bar questions Advocate General’s elevation
Gautam also questioned the circumstances surrounding Amit Kumar’s designation as a senior advocate, claiming that Kumar was not a designated senior when he initially came to Meghalaya.
He said the Bar Association had earlier convened a general body meeting and considered challenging Kumar’s designation but was unable to proceed with the challenge at that time.
Gautam further criticised the current situation involving the Advocate General, saying the dispute has reached a point where lawyers have resorted to boycotting courts.
“Now one person is holding everything at ransom. We have come to a situation that we have to boycott courts because of one person,” Gautam said.
He claimed that the ongoing dispute was affecting both the public and the legal fraternity, while alleging that the state government had remained silent on the issue.
The High Court Bar Association has been demanding greater transparency over expenditure related to the Advocate General’s office and has continued its campaign seeking action over its grievances against Amit Kumar.