The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a practicing advocate, observing that a lawyer cannot file a PIL to advance the cause of clients who have authorized them to handle their legal matters. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, noted that such conduct could potentially amount to professional misconduct.
Background
The petition, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 874 of 2026, was filed by Surendra Kumar Sharma, an advocate practicing in District Firozabad. The petitioner sought a direction to the Union of India and four others to supply natural gas connections to industries based on guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to decide an application dated February 22, 2026, which he had filed.
Petitioner’s Credentials
During the proceedings, the court scrutinized the credentials disclosed by the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the petition, the advocate stated:
“That, petitioner is practicing lawyer in District-Firozabad and legal advisor of some industry which are situated in District-Firozabad and Industrialist of Firozabad has authorized to petitioner to handle industrial matter before Industrial Authorities.”
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the petitioner’s disclosure regarding his professional relationship with the industries disqualified the petition from being treated as a matter of public interest. The Bench observed that the assertion of being a “legal advisor” who was “authorized” by industrialists to handle their matters before authorities directly removed the petition from the purview of a PIL.
The court held:
“Filing of the petition by an Advocate purportedly in public interest with the assertion that he is legal advisor of some industries and the industries have authorized him to handle the matters before the industrial authorities and, therefore, filing of the present petition before this Court, necessarily takes out the petition from the purview of a public interest.”
The Bench further emphasized the ethical boundaries of the legal profession, stating:
“An advocate who is approached by his clients for redressal of the grievance, cannot be permitted to become a petitioner and file PIL advancing cause of his clients.”
Decision
The court remarked that while the advocate’s conduct might amount to professional misconduct, it chose to take a lenient view on this occasion by allowing the petition to be withdrawn. However, the court issued a stern warning:
“The conduct may amount to professional misconduct, however, with a warning to the petitioner not to indulge in similar adventure in future, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on April 8, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Surendra Kumar Sharma Versus Union of India and 4 others
- Case No.: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 874 of 2026
- Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra
- Date: April 8, 2026
