SHILLONG : Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar on Thursday denied targeting the state’s legal fraternity, saying his recent remarks concerning an alleged molestation case involving a senior advocate were misinterpreted as an attack on the entire bar.
“This press conference is not against the bar associations or members of the bar. I am still a member of the bar, whether I am AG or not,” Kumar said.
The Advocate General said the controversy followed a complaint by a young intern alleging that she was molested by a senior member of the bar.
“An unfortunate incident took place. The young intern gathered courage and filed a complaint. Non-state actors acted on it, which is unfortunate. We should not take law into our own hands,” he said.
According to Kumar, a case was registered against the senior advocate on July 29, while an FIR was registered on July 31 against those who allegedly assaulted the advocate after the matter was taken up by the High Court.
He said 87 lawyers had also submitted a representation to the High Court Bar Association on July 31, seeking an institutional mechanism to deal with such complaints and ensure a safer and better workplace for women lawyers.
“A status report was sought by the High Court and we submitted it on August 3, stating that the accused had been apprehended,” Kumar said.
AG claims earlier cases involving same advocate
Kumar further claimed that the same advocate had faced allegations in similar cases in the past.
He said that before August 3, a young government advocate had informed him that the alleged incident was not the first involving the same person.
“From the case diary, I found that in 2024 also, a lady intern was molested by the same person and her statement was recorded,” Kumar claimed.
He also alleged that the same advocate had been accused of molesting an intern in 2017.
Kumar said the advocate had been on the government panel since 2013 and that he was unaware of the earlier cases until the information was disclosed to him confidentially.
According to the AG, the 2017 case was closed on grounds of insufficient evidence despite the survivor allegedly naming the accused in her statement.
“As AG, it is my duty to ensure the welfare of members is taken care of. I did not blame the High Court Bar Association or Shillong Bar Association,” he said.
Kumar said he refused to disclose the identity of the complainant, stating that it was his duty to protect the victim’s identity.
AG says he was expelled from bar association
Kumar said he was expelled from the bar association on August 5 following the controversy.
“I sought an opportunity to explain that I had not cast aspersions on any member of the bar. The matter was leaked to national media and the Supreme Court Bar Association requested the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association to withdraw its resolution,” he said.
He alleged that instead of seeking legal action through the High Court, personal allegations were made against him, including claims that he favoured lawyers from Delhi and misused his office.
“If what I said has caused hurt, they could have moved the High Court for action against me. Instead, personal attacks were made alleging I favour Delhi lawyers and misused the office,” Kumar said.
Kumar denies Rs 3 crore advance allegation
The Advocate General also strongly denied allegations that he had received an advance of Rs 3 crore from the Law Department.
“In eight-and-a-half years as AG, I have not taken a single rupee as advance. They should have verified facts. I welcome any inquiry by the state government. Truth should come out,” he said.
Defends engagement of outside legal support
Kumar also defended his decision to engage lawyers and research support, saying all 39 government lawyers are from Meghalaya while 11 other lawyers, including his wife and son, assist him without charging the state.
He said that between August 1 and August 31 alone, he handled 1,001 matters involving opinions, legal advice, drafting and court appearances.
“This work requires research support. None of these 11 lawyers, including my family members, have raised a single bill in eight-and-a-half years. If there is material to prove they charged money, I am guilty and will resign,” he said.
AG seeks reopening of 2017 case
Kumar said he would urge the authorities to consider reopening the 2017 case.
“The survivor’s statement is very clear and she has named the person. It should not have been closed on grounds of insufficient evidence. In the 2024 case, we are examining the FIR,” he said.
He added that allegations of such incidents taking place inside an advocate’s chamber require immense courage from victims to report and should be dealt with seriously.