SHILLONG : Lawyers in Meghalaya have decided to continue their indefinite boycott of courts after meetings with the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court and Law Minister Lahkmen Rymbui failed to resolve their demand for the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar.
The protest intensified in Shillong on Tuesday when lawyers threw eggs at a banner bearing the Advocate General’s picture, with the words “GO BACK” written across it.
The indefinite boycott is being jointly led by the Shillong Bar Association (SBA) and the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association on behalf of bar associations across the state.
Speaking after Tuesday’s meetings, SBA Secretary TL Jyrwa said the decision to boycott court proceedings was taken on Monday following the first phase of the agitation on August 27.
The lawyers had also met the Governor on Saturday, but Jyrwa said there had been no response from the Chief Minister or the Law Department regarding their demands.
Chief Justice cautions lawyers over court boycott
The delegation first met the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court on Tuesday morning.
According to Jyrwa, the Chief Justice cautioned the lawyers that abstaining from court work is prohibited under Supreme Court rulings. However, she also assured them that she would try to facilitate communication between the government and the bar associations.
Jyrwa said the lawyers explained that they had been left with no alternative after repeated attempts to raise their concerns failed to produce a response.
He said the Chief Justice asked them to reconsider the boycott and return to court work, while indicating that she would explore possibilities for talks between the government and the lawyers.
Meeting with Law Minister fails to break deadlock
The lawyers later met Law Minister Lahkmen Rymbui at noon, but the meeting failed to produce any concrete assurance.
Jyrwa said the minister appeared to be aware only of the lawyers’ boycott resolution and was not familiar with the detailed representation submitted to the Chief Minister.
According to Jyrwa, the minister said he could examine appointments that fall under the Law Department, but the demand for removal of the Advocate General would have to be decided by the Cabinet.
“The talks with the Law Minister were not satisfactory because it did not lead anywhere,” Jyrwa said.
He said the minister’s request for a copy of the lawyers’ resolution raised concerns among the associations that their earlier representation to the Chief Minister had not yet been placed before the Cabinet.
The lawyers also said they were not given any specific timeframe for examining their complaints or any assurance regarding the removal of the Advocate General.
Lawyers to review boycott on September 3
Following the meeting, the associations decided to stick to the boycott announced on Monday.
“We felt that we have to proceed as decided yesterday not to appear in courts,” Jyrwa said.
The steering committee of the lawyers’ associations is scheduled to review the situation on September 3.
The lawyers have reiterated their allegations against Advocate General Amit Kumar, including alleged misuse of his office in matters involving cases in Meghalaya and what they described as unnecessary expenditure of public funds through the engagement of outsiders.
Jyrwa said the agitation initially intensified following remarks allegedly made by the Advocate General concerning the safety of women in bar associations. He said the associations subsequently identified what they described as other irregularities.
Lawyers await talks with Chief Minister
On the government’s response, Jyrwa questioned the continued silence of Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma on their demand.
“It seems the Chief Minister wants to handle this matter alone,” he said, adding that the associations viewed the government’s silence with concern.
The lawyers said they remain willing to hold talks with the Chief Minister and are awaiting an invitation for a meeting.
The indefinite boycott is expected to affect regular court proceedings across Meghalaya unless the deadlock between the government and the bar associations is resolved.