The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in Law Students Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [W.P. No. 1080 of 2022], has firmly rejected allegations of financial impropriety in payment of professional fees to the Advocate General and other State law officers, calling the claims “irrelevant” and “without fulcrum.”
The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dwivedi and Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal delivered this order while dismissing I.A. No. 5308/2025, an interim application filed by the petitioner seeking an enquiry into alleged irregular payments made in connection with a pending PIL related to the recognition of nursing colleges in the state.
Background of the Case
The primary writ petition was filed by the Law Students Association, challenging the recognition process of various nursing colleges across Madhya Pradesh. The petition alleged that several colleges were granted recognition despite lacking the required infrastructure and norms. The High Court had taken cognizance and was closely monitoring the matter, having directed the authorities to submit records related to the recognition process.
As the proceedings approached conclusion, a controversy emerged regarding professional fees paid to the Advocate General and other government law officers. A letter dated 20.03.2025 from the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, which became widely circulated on social media and reported by Dainik Bhaskar on 19.03.2025, raised questions about payments made in this very PIL to government law officers who, the petitioner argued, should not have been paid separately as they were already on government payroll.
Legal Issues Involved
- Whether Advocate General and other government law officers can receive separate fees when appearing for autonomous bodies like MPNRC (Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council)?
- Whether such payments amount to financial irregularity or misuse of public funds?
- Can such allegations derail judicial proceedings in a public interest litigation?
Observations and Ruling of the Court
The High Court, after examining the matter, held that:
“Indeed, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner appear irrelevant inasmuch as it is an expenditure made by the government during the course of litigation.”
The Court clarified that MPNRC is an autonomous body, not a government department, and is therefore entitled to engage legal counsel independently, including the Advocate General, and pay professional fees as per its internal norms.
“Autonomous bodies…are free to engage the Advocate General and other law officers of the State and independent payment of professional fees, according to their norms, can be made.”
The Court further stressed that there was no evidence to suggest financial misconduct:
“Neither any material has been placed before us as to what amount has actually been paid to the Advocate General or to other law officers… nor any circular has been produced… that a private organisation cannot engage any counsels…”
In strongly worded remarks aimed at maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings, the Court said:
“Mulling over the situation, we are firm in our opinion that such type of allegations are not required to be scrutinized nor would such allegations adversely affect the minds of this Court…”
The Court also cited a 2021 decision by the Bombay High Court in Sharad Datta Yadav v. Municipal Commissioner, where similar allegations were dismissed for being mala fide.
The Court declined to enlarge the scope of the PIL to include allegations of financial misconduct:
“We do not want to enlarge the scope of the case… we do not find any illegality prima facie…”
Accordingly, the application was dismissed, and the Court reiterated its focus on concluding the core issue concerning nursing college recognitions.
