The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, has observed that an advocate who impleads a person as a respondent and makes allegations against him in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) should not subsequently accept a brief to represent that same person in court. The division bench noted that whether such conduct amounts to professional misconduct is a matter to be enquired into by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Consequently, the High Court dismissed three PILs challenging appointments and alleging corruption in the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission, imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- in each petition.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shri Anil Singh, a practicing advocate claiming to be an LL.M. student, filed three separate writ petitions in the nature of PILs—W.P. No. 11341/2025 on March 26, 2025; W.P. No. 18974/2025 on May 20, 2025; and W.P. No. 24052/2025 on June 25, 2025.
In these petitions, the petitioner challenged the appointments of authorities in the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission and raised allegations of misuse of post, corruption, and embezzlement of public money, including irregularities in vehicle fare allowance payments. Prior to filing the writ petitions, the petitioner had submitted a detailed complaint to the Lokayukta, which was subsequently enquired into and disposed of by the competent authority.
Reliefs Sought and Arguments
The petitioner, appearing in person, prayed for independent inquiries and criminal investigations into the alleged irregularities. In W.P. No. 11341/2025, the petitioner prayed: “That looking to the fact and circumstances of the case since the future of more than 1 lakhs students is at stake, this’ Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to direct the higher authorities i.e. P.S. higher education department and other competent authority to hold a fair and impartial inquiry and submit the report at earliest.”
In W.P. No. 18974/2025 and W.P. No. 24052/2025, the petitioner asserted that the matter involved organized crime and gross irregularities, seeking directives for the Lokayukta, CBI, or police to register cases, seize records related to vehicle allowance payments, and recover embezzled government money.
During the hearing, Government Advocate Dr. S. S. Chouhan brought to the court’s attention that on March 25, 2026, the petitioner had also filed two separate writ petitions (W.P. No. 11220/2026 and W.P. No. 8260/2026) as counsel on behalf of Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan, challenging recovery orders passed against him.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court evaluated the conduct of the petitioner in accepting a brief for a respondent he had previously accused. Addressing this conflict, the court observed: “It is a matter to be enquired by Bar Council of India whether it comes under the category of professional misconduct or not.”
The court further remarked that information used in the PILs appeared to have been sourced from his client, noting: “Since the petitioner has filed the petitions on behalf of one of the respondents i.e. Dr. Vishwas Chouhan who happens to be client in subsequent writ petitions, therefore, there is all possibility that all the information and facts mentioned in these Public Interest Litigations were collected from him which has been suppressed in para 4 of the Memo of the Writ Petition.”
On the maintainability of the PILs after administrative closure, the bench held that once a competent authority has enquired into the matter and closed the complaints, a PIL cannot be entertained.
The court also noted that the respondents were appointed in 2020, had worked for the last 25 years, and were at the fag end of their careers. Furthermore, the term of respondent No. 5 and others had already expired, and new appointments were notified on November 4, 2025.
Decision of the Court
Finding no merit in the petitions, the division bench dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 11341/2025, 18974/2025, and 24052/2025, imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner for each petition.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anil Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11341 of 2025 (with W.P. No. 18974 of 2025 and W.P. No. 24052 of 2025)
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia & Justice Pradeep Mittal
Date: July 16, 2026
