A controversy that arose from a law intern’s allegation of sexual harassment against a senior advocate refuses to die down in Meghalaya, with the state High Court Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association standing by their resolution expelling Advocate General Amit Kumar, rejecting an appeal by the Supreme Court Bar Association to withdraw the same.On July 28, an FIR was registered by the Shillong police after a woman alleged that a senior advocate in whose chambers she was interning had sexually harassed her, and later put Rs 500 inside her blazer as an inducement to stay silent.While the Shillong Bar Association suspended the advocate soon after, members of a student outfit, Hynñiewtrep National Youth Front, barged into his chamber and paraded him across Shillong streets. According to court records and police filings, the senior advocate was assaulted, with videos going viral of him being made to hold his ears and apologise.On July 29, around 70 advocates issued an open letter addressed to the Meghalaya State Bar Council and Bar Associations pointing out how interns and junior advocates were professionally dependent and vulnerable. “This inherent imbalance of power places a corresponding responsibility upon every senior member of the Bar to ensure that Chambers and the Bar Associations remain spaces of learning, integrity, and mutual respect.”Suggesting accessible reporting mechanisms, the letter said that, otherwise, “perpetrators become more courageous and emboldened because of a culture of impunity, while the survivors remain afraid and are silenced”.Must Read | Objection, says My Lord: Meet the Bar Council of India chief in the dock over NALSAR rowOn July 31, the High Court and Shillong Bar Associations filed a petition in the Meghalaya High Court on the manner in which the advocate had been apprehended, calling it “mob justice” and “vigilante action” and saying “non-State actors” had taken over functions that belonged to law enforcement authorities. The Bar Associations said the investigation against the advocate “must be dealt with strictly in accordance with law”.During the hearing, the court questioned police over reports that non-State actors had been permitted to address the media from within police station premises. Police subsequently registered a suo motu FIR relating to the assault and public parading and, based on video footage, arrested four individuals the same day.Story continues below this adAt the same hearing, Advocate General Amit Kumar raised the issue of women’s safety within the Bar. “As Advocate General, I have also failed and the Bar Association has also failed to protect even one lady member of the Bar. It is our duty to protect, and it is not the first time this kind of complaint has come.”After the hearing, Senior Advocate Kaustav Paul took on Kumar, asking him to share details regarding the other complainants he had referred to. On August 4, the Advocate General released an open letter declining to do so, saying: “I am not a conduit, and I decline to become one… The decision whether to complain, when to complain, and to which forum, is hers and hers (a victim’s) alone.”Kumar also questioned the Bar Associations’ alacrity in raising the issue of the “mob justice” against the advocate, but failing to set up an Internal Complaints Committee despite having agreed to do so in April 2024. “Vigilantism does not grow where the law is strong. It grows where the law is absent, or is believed to be absent,” Kumar wrote, adding that there is “collective moral failure on part of the members of the Bar to provide a safe working environment to women”.To submission by Bar Associations in court that complaint drop boxes had been made mandatory across their offices and that of the Meghalaya State Bar Council, Kumar questioned their efficacy in the absence of safeguards. “A drop box is… not a redressal mechanism… A box in an open corridor, where a young woman must be seen by fifty colleagues putting an envelope into it, is not a confidential channel,” he said.Story continues below this adThe Bar Associations saw the letter and Kumar’s remarks in court as “castigating” them, and called for a general meeting on August 5. There, lawyers criticised Kumar as an “outsider”, and concerns were raised about the appointment of lawyers who do not belong to Meghalaya to government panels.The meeting ended with a resolution terminating Kumar’s membership “with immediate effect”. It also decided to write to Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma seeking Kumar’s removal as Advocate General.Subsequently, Kumar wrote to presidents of the High Court and Shillong Bar Association, expressing his “sincere regrets” and saying that he merely attempted to “highlight institutional lacunae” with his remarks.On August 14, the Supreme Court Bar Association passed a resolution calling Kumar’s remarks “an acknowledgement of the need to ensure safe and dignified spaces for women lawyers and interns” and said disciplinary action against him for submissions made during judicial proceedings was “unwarranted”.Story continues below this adHowever, its request to withdraw the expulsion of Kumar was rejected by the Meghalaya High Court and Shillong Bar Associations.