SHILLONG : The Meghalaya High Court Bar Association has claimed to possess documentary evidence showing that Advocate General Amit Kumar charged Rs 1.5 lakh per appearance in a Commercial Court case, despite the prescribed government fee schedule fixing Rs 20,000 per appearance for the High Court.
The allegation, made on Friday, directly contradicts Kumar’s earlier public statement that he had never charged fees exceeding the prescribed schedule.
Addressing the media, Bar Association Secretary General Kishore Gautam said the Association had received an anonymous envelope marked ‘confidential’ containing invoices amounting to more than Rs 1 crore.
“We received an envelope with some documents inside from somebody whom I don’t want to name. When we opened it, we saw something which actually shocked us all. This is in relation to our agitation for the last few months demanding removal of Amit Kumar as Advocate General,” Gautam said.
Referring to Kumar’s press conference on September 3, Gautam recalled that the Advocate General had rejected allegations of charging excessive fees and cited a schedule of Rs 20,000 per appearance in the High Court, Rs 40,000 in the Supreme Court and Rs 50,000 as retainer.
However, Gautam said the documents received by the Association contained invoices relating to a Commercial Court case, which he described as a district-level court, showing charges of Rs 1.5 lakh per appearance.
“The document we have today contains invoices for a particular case not in the High Court, not in the Supreme Court, but in the Commercial Court, which is the district court, which runs into more than Rs 1 crore. Here Amit Kumar is charging Rs 1,50,000 per appearance,” he said.
According to Gautam, the invoices relate to the period between 2021 and 2023, although he said he was not certain of the exact dates. He added that he believed the bills had already been paid.
Questioning the discrepancy between the invoices and the Advocate General’s earlier statement, Gautam alleged that Kumar had misled the media by claiming that he had never charged beyond the prescribed fee schedule.
The Bar Association secretary general also linked the alleged payments to the denial of information sought by the Association under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
He said the Association’s RTI application was rejected by invoking Section 8 of the Act, a decision he disagreed with as a lawyer. Following an appeal, the department had reportedly sought an additional 15 days to obtain Kumar’s consent.
“Today we realise the reason this information is denied is not because of RTI exception but because the government does not want the public to know how much is being spent and this is for one particular case only,” Gautam alleged.
Defending the Association’s ongoing agitation seeking Kumar’s removal as Advocate General, Gautam said the issue was not driven by personal rivalry or resentment over a lawyer from outside the state earning more money.
He said the Association initially raised concerns over statements made in a particular High Court case but subsequently came across other matters that strengthened its demand for accountability.
“A lawyer can charge whatever fee he wants. But for a government lawyer, for an Advocate General, there is a schedule. If he bills Rs 1,50,000 per appearance, who allowed this payment? The government will pay whatever Amit Kumar asks, forgetting the schedule. There is no auditing, no accountability at all,” he said.
On the Association’s next course of action, Gautam said it would wait for the department’s response to the pending RTI appeals, for which the appellate authority had sought an additional 15 days, with the deadline expected to expire in November.
He said the Association expected further revelations through the RTI process and would collectively decide on its next steps after examining all the documents.
Gautam added that the Association had not ruled out approaching the appropriate authorities once the available materials had been thoroughly discussed.