The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by a Lucknow-based advocate who sought a direction to the Union Government to pay him ₹1 crore in fees and expenses. The advocate, Ashok Pandey, claimed the amount was due for his efforts in filing six cases in 2018 aimed at “defending” then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra during a period of institutional turmoil.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi termed the petition “totally misconceived.” The court observed that if the petitioner’s actions were intended to protect the institution, such “social service” could not be quantified in monetary terms.
The matter reached the apex court following a challenge to a March 2023 order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had previously rejected Pandey’s plea for the ₹1 crore payout.
Pandey’s claim originated from his legal interventions following the unprecedented January 2018 press conference held by the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court at the time. The advocate argued that he filed six separate cases to protect the dignity of then-CJI Dipak Misra, asserting that “judges cannot address a press conference against the Chief Justice” as it violated established norms.
In July 2024, the Ministry of Law and Justice had also officially rejected his claim for the ₹1 crore fee, a decision that was subsequently challenged alongside the High Court’s dismissal.
“Social Service is Priceless”
During the hearing, Pandey informed the bench that he had personally incurred expenses of ₹2 lakh to litigate these matters, even borrowing money from his daughter to sustain the legal battles.
However, the bench was critical of the petitioner’s stance and past conduct. “After making left and right all kinds of allegations against judges, why are you using the word ‘honourable’ now?” the CJI questioned during the proceedings.
Addressing the demand for a massive payout for institutional defense, the CJI remarked:
“You provided social service to the institution. Social service is always priceless. How can it be assessed at ₹one crore or two crore?”
The bench further noted that while the court could offer words of appreciation for his self-described service, it could not validate a financial claim against the Centre for private litigation. “If you wanted an appreciation, we appreciate you for that,” the bench added before dismissing the plea.
With the dismissal of this petition, the top court has put an end to the advocate’s multi-year pursuit of professional fees from the government for cases he initiated independently. The court maintained that legal interventions characterized as “social service” do not create a debt or a right to compensation from the public exchequer.
