The President of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, KS Kynjing, has raised objections to decisions taken by association secretary Kishore Ch Gautam concerning Advocate General Amit Kumar. In a letter to Gautam, Kynjing questioned a communication sent to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), media statements and a joint meeting that preceded a proposed boycott of courts and tribunals across Meghalaya from October 1.
He said the Executive Committee had not approved these actions. Kynjing also cited a Supreme Court ruling concerning lawyers’ strikes and court boycotts. He called for the matter to return to the association’s Executive Committee for discussion.
Read More: Mizoram Accident: 3 Officials Killed
Key Facts
- Location: Meghalaya
- Association: High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association
- President: KS Kynjing
- Secretary: Kishore Ch Gautam
- Advocate General: Amit Kumar
- Issue: Proposed court and tribunal boycott
- Boycott date: October 1
- SCBA communication: Dated August 17
- Joint meeting: September 30
- Legal reference: Ex-Capt. Barish Uppal v. Union of India (2003)
President Questions Unilateral Decisions
Kynjing expressed serious displeasure over actions taken without prior consultation with the association’s Executive Committee.
He specifically questioned a communication Gautam sent to the Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association on August 17.
According to Kynjing, the Executive Committee did not discuss or authorise the communication before Gautam sent it to the SCBA.
He also criticised the language used in the letter. Kynjing said communications involving the association should maintain professional dignity, restraint and civility.
Dispute Over Court Boycott Decision
Kynjing also questioned a joint meeting involving the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and Shillong Bar Association on September 30.
He said the meeting took place without informing or consulting him and some other executive members.
According to Kynjing, the meeting resulted in a decision to boycott courts and tribunals across Meghalaya from October 1.
He described the decision as “highly illegal” and referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex-Capt. Barish Uppal v. Union of India.
The judgment held that lawyers do not have a right to strike or call for a boycott of courts, according to the letter.
Concerns Over Lawyers’ Court Duties
Kynjing said advocates who hold vakalat for clients cannot simply stop appearing in court because of a strike or boycott call.
He also argued that Bar Associations and Bar Councils should not facilitate meetings aimed at organising such boycotts.
According to Kynjing, exceptional situations involving the dignity, integrity or independence of the Bar or Bench may require consultation with the Chief Justice or District Judge.
Objection to Media Statements
The association president also questioned press releases, media statements and a press conference issued or conducted in the association’s name without Executive Committee approval.
Kynjing said public statements made on behalf of the association carry its institutional authority and reputation.
He argued that unauthorised statements could expose the association and its members to controversy and affect the institution’s reputation.
Dispute Over “GO BACK AMIT KUMAR” Banners
Kynjing also raised concerns about banners carrying the slogan “GO BACK AMIT KUMAR” displayed at locations within the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association premises.
He said the banners allegedly appeared without approval from the Executive Committee or General Body.
Kynjing called for their removal and said banners, posters and slogans within association premises should receive prior approval from the competent authority.
He further argued that grievances against the Advocate General should go through authorised forums and established procedures.
Appeal for Institutional Dialogue
Kynjing noted that Advocate General Amit Kumar had already tendered an apology through a letter dated August 13.
He also said the state government has the authority to appoint the Advocate General within the constitutional and legal framework.
According to Kynjing, disagreement over an appointment should not result in prolonged disruption of court proceedings.
He urged Gautam to place the entire issue before the Executive Committee, including the SCBA communication and subsequent media statements.
Location Context
Meghalaya is an important state in Northeast India, and the High Court of Meghalaya in Shillong plays a central role in the administration of justice in the state. The dispute involves the functioning of legal associations and the continuation of court proceedings across Meghalaya.
Questions and Answers
What is the dispute about?
The dispute concerns decisions and statements relating to Meghalaya Advocate General Amit Kumar and a proposed court boycott.
Who raised the objections?
High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association President KS Kynjing raised the objections.
Who is the association secretary?
Kishore Ch Gautam serves as the association’s secretary.
When was the proposed boycott scheduled?
The court and tribunal boycott was scheduled to begin on October 1.
What Supreme Court case did Kynjing cite?
He cited Ex-Capt. Barish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45.
What did Kynjing request?
He asked that the matter return to the Executive Committee and urged lawyers to avoid actions that could disrupt court proceedings.
Also Read: Tripura CPI(M) Seeks Tighter Security, Webcasting for TTAADC Vote Counting – Borok Times