Meghalaya Advocate General Accused of Overcharging State Treasury by Seven Times Approved Rates Two prominent Meghalaya bar associations allege that Advocate General Amit Kumar billed over Rs 1 crore in a commercial dispute, charging Rs 1.5 lakh per court appearance. A major dispute has erupted in Meghalaya over the legal remuneration drawn from public funds, with two premier legal associations accusing Advocate General Amit Kumar of billing significantly above the officially sanctioned tariff in a commercial lawsuit. According to the legal bodies, the cumulative fees claimed in that single matter crossed Rs 1 crore. Discrepancies Between Official Caps and Billed Invoices The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association alongside the Shillong Bar Association brought these claims forward on Friday. Representatives from the two bodies stated that billing records delivered by an unnamed whistleblower reveal a single court hearing was billed at Rs 1.5 lakh. This figure represents nearly seven times the payment authorized under official rules. The disputed vouchers originate from proceedings held before the Commercial Court between 2021 and 2023. The current official compensation structure specifies fixed remuneration: Rs 20,000 for an appearance in the High Court, Rs 40,000 for representation before the Supreme Court, and a fixed monthly retainer of Rs 50,000. While Kumar stated publicly on September 3 that his billings had never exceeded the sanctioned remuneration schedule, the lawyers maintain that the payment receipts currently in their custody directly conflict with his assertion. Questions Over Internal Oversight and RTI Delays Scrutiny is also turning toward the state administrative machinery. Kishore Gautam, Secretary General of the High Court Bar Association, questioned how invoices of this magnitude managed to pass internal verification and secure financial sanction without encountering administrative hurdles within the government. Shillong Bar Association Secretary Trebor Jyrwa claimed that authorities are shielding the Advocate General from accountability. He highlighted that multiple submissions filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act requesting comprehensive details of these disbursements were repeatedly turned down. Currently, the department handling the matter has requested an extension until November 5 to seek Kumar's clearance before any disclosures are made. Additional Invoices and Arbitration Proceedings Under Scrutiny Jyrwa drew attention to supplementary invoices issued through Kumar's Delhi chamber as well as Indus Law Associates. The allegations also extend into arbitration proceedings, where Kumar purportedly submitted a bill of Rs 1.4 lakh for a single day of proceedings, despite the prescribed compensation limit being just Rs 11,000 for the task. The associations confirmed that they are holding additional billing records but will defer further steps until the pending RTI proceedings run their course. The representatives underlined that their intervention is strictly aimed at defending public money and reinforcing governmental accountability, rather than pursuing any personal animosity. What this means for you This development directly spotlights the accountability of top government law officers and the protection of public revenue. • Across India: The incident emphasizes the necessity of tight administrative checks on public exchequer expenditures incurred for legal representation. It underlines how citizen transparency mechanisms like the RTI Act serve as vital tools to probe public spending. • In Meghalaya: Taxpayers within the state are directly affected as public funds running into crores are central to the dispute. Residents will be closely watching whether the government releases the verified payment records after November 5. • For the Legal Community: Legal professionals and bar councils face questions regarding standardized compensation structures versus independent legal billings. The issue sets a critical precedent on the scrutiny of fees collected by state-appointed advocates. • Administrative Governance: Government finance wings now face growing pressure to tighten their verification protocols before processing high-value legal vouchers. This could lead to stricter auditing requirements for retainers and court appearance claims across states. Why this happened The dispute arose after two legal bodies obtained leaked billing records from an anonymous whistleblower that contradicted official state caps and prior public statements by the Advocate General. • Whistleblower Disclosures: An unnamed source provided the bar associations with invoice records showing court appearances billed at Rs 1.5 lakh each. These documents directly challenged earlier public claims by the Advocate General that he adhered strictly to official schedules. • Repeated RTI Denials: Formal requests filed under the Right to Information Act to verify government disbursements were repeatedly declined. This refusal to share payment logs led bar leaders to suspect institutional shielding and escalate the matter publicly. • Severe Rate Discrepancies: Invoices displaying Rs 1.5 lakh for High Court hearings and Rs 1.4 lakh for arbitration sessions contrasted drastically with the respective authorized caps of Rs 20,000 and Rs 11,000, triggering allegations of oversight failures. Questions & Answers 1. What allegations have been leveled against the Advocate General of Meghalaya? He is accused of billing over Rs 1 crore in a commercial dispute by charging Rs 1.5 lakh per court appearance, well above the government-approved cap. 2. What is the official state fee for a High Court appearance? The approved schedule mandates Rs 20,000 per High Court appearance, Rs 40,000 for the Supreme Court, and a monthly retainer of Rs 50,000. 3. What has Advocate General Amit Kumar stated regarding his billing? On September 3, he stated publicly that he had never submitted bills exceeding the government-approved schedule. 4. What is the status of the RTI applications regarding these payments? RTI requests seeking fee details were repeatedly rejected, and the department has sought time until November 5 to seek Kumar's consent before disclosure. 5. What was allegedly charged in the arbitration case? Kumar allegedly claimed Rs 1.4 lakh for a single day of appearance in an arbitration matter against an approved rate of Rs 11,000. https://trendkia.com/en/meghalaya/meghalaya-ke-advocate-general-para-sarakari-dara-se-sata-guna-adhika-phisa-vasulane-ka-aropa-53909 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.