The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has urged the Meghalaya High Court Bar Association and Shillong Bar Association to reconsider and withdraw their joint resolution against Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar, terming the action “unwarranted”.
The two associations had on August 13 resolved to remove Kumar from their rolls and sought his removal as Advocate General over submissions he made regarding the responsibility of bar associations to ensure the safety of women lawyers and law interns.
The SCBA said Kumar’s remarks should be viewed in the context in which they were made. It noted that, while appearing before the Meghalaya High Court, the Advocate General had referred to steps taken in the case and stressed that both the safety of Bar members and the safety and dignity of women advocates and law interns required attention.
According to the SCBA, the submissions arose from a matter involving serious allegations by a woman law intern against a senior member of the Bar and were made during ongoing judicial proceedings. It said seeking action against the Advocate General over submissions made in that context could further escalate the controversy.
The SCBA called on the two associations to withdraw their resolution and instead establish an effective and confidential mechanism through which women advocates and law interns could raise grievances and seek redress. It stressed that women lawyers and interns should be able to voice concerns without fear and that protecting the safety and dignity of all members of the legal profession was a collective responsibility.
The controversy stems from proceedings before the Meghalaya High Court over the alleged assault and public parading of an advocate in Shillong. The advocate had earlier faced allegations of molesting a law intern. The High Court had also expressed concern over the alleged failure of police to intervene despite being present during the incident.
The incident initially prompted the two bar associations to raise concerns over lawyers’ safety before the dispute expanded to Kumar’s submissions concerning safeguards for women advocates and law interns, ultimately leading to the joint resolution against him.
