Back
Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Costs On Advocate Filing Public Interest Litigation
The at Jabalpur has dismissed three separate () filed by advocate <>Anil Singhcounsel>, citing concerns over and . The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, imposed costs of ₹25,000 on each petition, totaling ₹75,000, for what the Court termed as questionable litigation tactics.
A Dual Conflict
The petitioner, an advocate who also identifies as a student, had challenged the appointments and operations of the . However, the Court discovered a significant : while Singh was pursuing public action against certain officials, he simultaneously represented one of those individuals, Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan, in separate litigation.
According to the Court, the petitioner accepted a brief to defend Dr. Chouhan in different proceedings despite having made serious allegations against him in the current PILs. Justice Rusia noted, “Once the petitioner has impleaded Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan as and made allegations against him, then, he should not have accepted the brief as a .”
Allegations of Misuse
The petitions had alleged that the commission was marred by
"organized, planned, and gross irregularity"
related to financial mismanagement and the misuse of public office. The petitioner sought an investigation by the
or the
. However, the High Court observed that these issues had already been addressed by the
and were subsequently closed.
The state argued that the petitions lacked merit and were filed strategically after other legal avenues had been exhausted. Furthermore, the Court noted that the individuals accused in the petitions were nearing the end of their professional careers, and most had already been replaced by a new board appointed in .
Key Observations from the Bench
The Court emphasized that professional ethics must remain paramount in legal practice:
-
"Once the Competent Authority enquired the matter and closed the same, then Public Interest Litigation is certainly not liable to be entertained."
-
"It is a matter to be enquired by whether it comes under the category of or not."
-
"There is all possibility that all the information and facts mentioned in these were collected from him which has been suppressed."
Judicial Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to act with the impartiality expected of a . By simultaneously attacking and representing the same parties, the petitioner created an irreconcilable conflict, leading the bench to dismiss the petitions with costs. The Court has left open the possibility for the to evaluate whether these actions constitute , marking a stern warning against the misuse of judicial forums.
