The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association have resolved to intensify their agitation seeking the removal of Amit Kumar as Advocate General of Meghalaya, announcing that advocates practising before courts and tribunals across the State will abstain from judicial work from September 1. The decision, taken at an emergent joint executive committee meeting on August 31, follows the unanimous resolution adopted at the Joint General Body meeting of all Bar Associations of Meghalaya on August 24, signalling a widening confrontation between the legal fraternity and the State Government over what the associations have described as issues concerning the “dignity, welfare and interest of the Bar”.
The two associations said the decision to resort to abstention was taken after the Government allegedly failed to communicate with them or address their demand for Kumar’s removal. According to the resolution, the demand had arisen from what the associations described as the “damage to the dignity, welfare and interest of the Bar” caused by the Advocate General’s “action and conduct”. The associations maintained that the latest course of action was intended to mount pressure on the Government while asserting that the demand was “purely for the interest of the legal fraternity of the State as a whole”.
In a unanimously adopted resolution, the Joint Executive Committee stated: “That all advocates practising before all Courts and Tribunals in the State of Meghalaya SHALL abstain from judicial work with effect from 1st September, 2026.” It further resolved that the abstention would remain in force until the Government of Meghalaya removes Amit Kumar from the office of Advocate General, Meghalaya.
The associations, however, made a specific exception for bail matters, resolving that “That the said abstention shall not apply to BAIL MATTERS.” The resolution also directed that it be given wide circulation among members of all Bar Associations in Meghalaya, calling upon advocates to observe the abstention from judicial work. The decision was formally recorded as having been “Resolved accordingly on this 31st day of August, 2026.”
