Mukul A. Sangma Questions Chief Minister on AG's Removal Amid Protests

Shillong, India Aug 29, 2026 ALN: Leader of the Opposition Dr. Mukul A. Sangma on Friday sought clarification from Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma over protests by lawyers demanding the removal of Advocate General Amit Kumar, stressing the issue’s implications for the administration of justice.

Raising a point of order before Speaker Thomas A. Sangma on the concluding day of the Assembly’s Autumn Session, Mukul referred to media reports concerning grievances raised by the High Court of Bar Association, the Shillong Bar Association, and other members of the legal fraternity. The protests have drawn attention to the functioning of the legal system in the state, highlighting tensions between the government and the legal community.

The Advocate General, who acts as the chief legal advisor to the government, plays a crucial role in the administration of justice, and the demand for his removal indicates a significant rift between the legal community and the state administration. Such protests are not merely expressions of discontent; they can reflect deeper issues regarding the independence of the judiciary and the executive's role in legal matters.

Invoking Rule 300 and specifically referring to Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, he urged the Government to state its position and explain how it proposed to address the concerns. This procedural invocation underscores the seriousness of the situation and the expectation that the government should provide clarity on matters that affect public trust in legal institutions.

Mukul said the House deserved an explanation before the session ended, as members would have no further opportunity during the sitting to seek clarification. He also cited parliamentary convention requiring the Government to inform the House about significant developments while it was in session. This highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in governance, particularly in matters that could affect the rule of law.

Emphasising that the administration of justice was an integral part of governance, Mukul cautioned that any disruption to the functioning of the justice system could have wider implications for the State. He pointed out that a stable and efficient legal system is essential for maintaining order and protecting the rights of citizens. Disruptions caused by unresolved grievances among legal professionals could lead to a backlog of cases, delayed justice, and a loss of public confidence in the legal system.

Responding, Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma acknowledged the importance of the matter but said members could have raised it through available legislative procedures, including a Zero Hour notice. This response suggests that while the government recognizes the concerns raised, it also believes in adhering to procedural norms, which can sometimes create friction in urgent situations.

Conrad said the Government had refrained from making a statement because the matter was sub judice, with related proceedings pending before the High Court. The term 'sub judice' refers to matters that are currently under judicial consideration and therefore cannot be publicly discussed in detail without risking contempt of court. Referring to his earlier statement on the law-and-order situation, he said the Government had kept the House informed about important developments but could not make a statement on this issue because of the pending judicial proceedings.

This highlights a critical aspect of governance where the executive must balance transparency with the legal obligations imposed by the judiciary. The Chief Minister's reference to the law-and-order situation indicates a broader context where the government is navigating multiple challenges, including maintaining public order while addressing legal grievances.

Mukul then sought a specific explanation as to how the matter was sub judice, pointing out that the media reports he had cited did not establish such a connection. This challenge to the Chief Minister's assertion underscores the complexities involved in navigating legal and procedural frameworks while ensuring that the voices of legal professionals are heard and addressed.

The Chief Minister said he did not have the relevant details immediately available. He recalled being informed about three days earlier, when the issue was expected to be raised, that the matter was sub judice, and said he would need time to obtain the details. This admission of needing time to gather information reflects the often intricate nature of legal matters and the necessity for government officials to be well-informed before making public statements.

Mukul, in his concluding intervention, urged the Government to treat the concerns with the utmost seriousness, reiterating that the effective administration of justice was fundamental to good governance. His insistence on the importance of addressing these concerns reflects a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the legal community can operate without fear of interference or injustice.

The ongoing protests and the demand for the Advocate General's removal may have broader implications for the legal landscape in . If unresolved, these issues could lead to a prolonged period of instability within the legal system, potentially affecting the delivery of justice and the public's perception of the government’s commitment to upholding legal standards. As the situation develops, it will be crucial for the government to engage constructively with the legal community to restore confidence and ensure that the administration of justice remains a priority.