Shillong, Oct 30: The Meghalaya High Court Bar Association has accused Advocate General Amit Kumar of charging the state government Rs 1.5 lakh per court appearance in a district-level Commercial Court case, with the total bill reportedly exceeding Rs 1 crore.
The allegation comes weeks after Kumar publicly maintained that his fees were restricted to the government-approved rates of Rs 20,000 per appearance in the High Court and Rs 40,000 in the Supreme Court, besides a monthly retainer of Rs 50,000.
The association said it came across documents containing invoices for the Commercial Court case after receiving an envelope marked ‘confidential’ from an anonymous source.
Secretary General Kishore Gautam said the documents had left members shocked and raised further questions about the expenditure incurred by the state government on the Advocate General’s office.
“This is in relation to our agitation which you are aware of for the last few months. We have been demanding the removal of Amit Kumar as Advocate General,” Gautam said.
Referring to Kumar’s September 3 press conference, Gautam said the Advocate General had rejected allegations of charging excessive fees and maintained that he had never billed the government beyond the prescribed schedule.
However, the documents received by the association allegedly show invoices of Rs 1.5 lakh per appearance in a case before the Commercial Court, which is a district-level court and does not fall under either the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Gautam said the bills pertained to the period between 2021 and 2023 and claimed that the payments had already been cleared by the government.
“Whether the bills have been paid or not, the fact remains that Amit Kumar has lied before the press. The writing is on the wall. It is very clear that he has charged more than he is supposed to,” he alleged.
The association also linked the latest disclosure to its pending Right to Information (RTI) applications seeking details of payments made to the Advocate General.
Gautam said the department had earlier refused to share the information, citing exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Association has since filed an appeal and was recently informed that the department required another 15 days to obtain Kumar’s consent before responding to the application.
He alleged that the latest documents had strengthened the association’s suspicion that the government was withholding information about the expenditure.
“The person who gave us this envelope is perhaps a son or daughter of the state who understands what is happening but, for whatever reasons, cannot come forward. Perhaps they want the public to know how the state is bleeding,” he said.
Rejecting suggestions that the association’s campaign was driven by personal differences with Kumar, Gautam said its objections had initially stemmed from statements made during a particular High Court case, but further developments had raised broader concerns.
He maintained that while private lawyers were free to decide their professional fees, an Advocate General was bound by the fee structure prescribed by the government.
“If he has billed Rs 1,50,000 per appearance, who authorised the payment? Will the government pay whatever Amit Kumar asks for as appearance fees, completely overlooking the prescribed schedule? There is no question of auditing or accountability at all,” Gautam said.
The association said it would await responses to its pending RTI appeals, with the additional 15-day period expected to expire in November, before deciding on its next course of action.
Gautam said the documents received so far related to only one case and that the association expected further disclosures through the RTI process.
