Shillong, Oct 7: The agitation against Advocate General Amit Kumar has now raised questions over the expenditure on his office, with the High Court Bar Association seeking details of public money spent on the AG and lawyers brought in from outside the state.
Bar Association Secretary General Kishore Gautam said an RTI application seeking the details was rejected on the 30th day, with the authorities citing Section 8 of the RTI Act.
“We had filed an RTI to know how much public funds are being spent for the office of the Advocate General and the outstation lawyers. On the 30th day, they replied saying they cannot give the information under Section 8, which is absolutely not legally tenable,” Gautam said.
The Bar has since filed an appeal against the denial of the information.
Gautam said the association wants the expenditure details to be made public so there is greater clarity on how much is being spent on the AG’s office. He claimed the expenditure runs into crores and is much higher than what was spent under previous Advocate Generals.
“A lot of money, crores and crores, is being spent for running the office of an Advocate General who comes from Delhi. Compare it with earlier Advocate Generals and you will see a very big difference,” he said.
“For a small state like ours, we need not spend so much for the AG and outstation lawyers who come from outside and stay in five-star hotels,” Gautam added.
He said the Bar would continue pursuing the matter through the RTI process.
“That information has been denied to us. We have filed an appeal which I think will also be denied, but we will keep pursuing. They cannot invoke Section 8 when public funds are involved,” he said.
On Kumar’s designation as a senior advocate, Gautam said the issue had been raised by the Bar earlier as well.
“He was not a designated senior when he came here. He was designated from here. We had called a general body meeting then and wanted to challenge his designation, but could not do so,” he said.
Gautam said the dispute had also affected court proceedings, with lawyers continuing their boycott. “We are forced to boycott courts because of one person. The public is suffering, the legal fraternity is suffering and the government is silent,” he said.
