SHILLONG, Oct 2: The President of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, KS Kynjing, has expressed displeasure over what he described as unilateral decisions taken by the association’s secretary, Kishore Ch Gautam, in matters concerning Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar.
In a letter to Gautam, Kynjing objected to a communication sent to the Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), press statements and a joint meeting that led to a call to boycott courts and tribunals across Meghalaya from October 1.
Kynjing said the communication to the SCBA on August 17 had not been placed before or discussed by the association’s Executive Committee. He said such a matter, which had a direct bearing on the dignity and collective position of the association, should not have been dealt with without prior consultation and authorisation.
He also objected to the language used in the communication, saying it did not reflect the standards of civility, restraint and professional dignity expected of the legal fraternity.
Kynjing questioned the holding of a joint meeting of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association on September 30 without informing or consulting him or other executive members. He said the meeting resulted in a decision to boycott courts and tribunals across the state from October 1.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Ex-Capt. Barish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, Kynjing said lawyers had no right to strike or call for a boycott of courts. He also said advocates holding vakalat for clients could not refuse to appear because of a strike or boycott call.
Kynjing further objected to press releases, media statements and a press conference being issued or held in the association’s name without Executive Committee approval. He said such actions exposed the association and its members to unnecessary controversy and alleged that they had brought disrepute to the institution.
He also sought the removal of banners carrying the slogan “GO BACK AMIT KUMAR” from the association premises, saying they had allegedly been displayed without approval from the Executive Committee or General Body.
Kynjing said grievances against the Advocate General should be raised through authorised forums and procedures. He also noted that Kumar had already tendered an apology in a letter dated August 13.
He said the State Government had the prerogative to appoint the Advocate General within the constitutional and legal framework, adding that dissatisfaction with the appointment could not justify paralysing court proceedings.
Kynjing called for the entire issue, including the SCBA communication and subsequent media statements, to be placed before the Executive Committee. He also appealed to lawyers to refrain from rallies, strikes and court boycotts that could hamper the administration and delivery of justice.
He urged Gautam to ensure that such unilateral actions were not repeated and asked lawyers to continue performing their duties in the interests of their clients.
