Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship

"It is a matter to be enquired by Bar Council of India whether it comes under the category of professional misconduct or not." High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a significant ruling, dismissed a batch of Public Interest Litigations filed by a practicing advocate, imposing heavy costs after discovering that the petitioner had subsequently accepted a brief to represent one of the very respondents he had made allegations against.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal strongly deprecated this conduct, noting that the petitioner likely used information collected from his client to fuel the PILs while suppressing this crucial fact from the court.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate claiming to be an LL.M. student, filed three writ petitions in the nature of Public Interest Litigation against the authorities of the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission. The petitions challenged the appointment of the Chairman and members, alleging misuse of public money and seeking investigations by agencies like the Lokayukta or CBI. Before approaching the High Court, the petitioner had lodged similar complaints before the Lokayukta, which had already been inquired into and closed by the competent authority.

The primary question before the court was whether a Public Interest Litigation could be entertained when the competent statutory authority had already investigated and closed the underlying complaints. The court was also called upon to determine whether the petitioner's act of representing a respondent in subsequent litigation, while suppressing this attorney-client relationship in the present PILs, amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.

PIL Not Maintainable After Closure Of Complaints

The court first addressed the maintainability of the petitions in light of the prior actions taken by statutory authorities. The bench observed that the petitioner had already made detailed complaints to the Lokayukta regarding the alleged organized crime and financial irregularities. The court noted that since the competent authority had already inquired into the matter and disposed of the complaints, the subsequent Public Interest Litigation was "certainly not liable to be entertained."

Professional Misconduct And Conflict Of Interest

The proceedings took a sharp turn when the Government Advocate informed the bench about the petitioner's subsequent professional engagements. It was brought to the court's attention that the petitioner had filed two other writ petitions on behalf of one Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan, challenging recovery proceedings against him. Crucially, Dr. Chouhan was arrayed as a respondent in the present PILs, with the petitioner having made severe allegations against him.

Bar Council Directed To Examine Conduct

The bench took strict note of this glaring conflict of interest. The judges emphasized that an advocate cannot play a dual role of making allegations against an individual in a PIL and simultaneously representing them in connected matters. The court firmly observed that having impleaded the individual as a respondent, the petitioner should have refrained from accepting their legal brief.

"Once the petitioner has impleaded Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan as respondent and made allegations against him, then, he should not have accepted the brief as a Counsel for filing W.P. No.11220/2026 and W.P. No.8260/2026."

Suppression Of Material Facts From The Court

The court further deduced that the petitioner’s actions severely compromised the bona fides of the public interest claim. The bench reasoned that since the petitioner was representing the respondent in subsequent writ petitions, there was every possibility that the facts and information pleaded in the PILs were sourced directly from his client. The court emphatically stated that this information was actively suppressed in paragraph 4 of the writ petition memo.

Tenure Of Respondents Already Expired

Dismantling the factual basis of the petitioner's case, the court examined the current status of the respondents whose appointments were under challenge. The bench pointed out that these officials had been appointed in the year 2020 and were currently at the fag end of their careers. More importantly, the court noted that the tenure of the respondents had already concluded, and new appointments to the positions of Chairman and Members had been formally notified on November 4, 2025.

Taking a stern view of the suppression of facts and the questionable professional conduct of the petitioner, the High Court proceeded to dismiss all three writ petitions. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on each of the three petitions, reaffirming that the sacred forum of Public Interest Litigation cannot be misused by litigants who fail to approach the court with clean hands.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2026