Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a Law Students Association raising serious allegations against the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh and other state law officers regarding alleged payment of “exorbitant professional fees” in ongoing litigation involving the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (MPNRC), an autonomous body, a Division Bench of Sanjay Dwivedi and Achal Kumar Paliwal, JJ., dismissed the PIL on not finding any prima facie illegality in the case.
The petitioner filed a subsequent interlocutory application seeking an enquiry into the issue, and if financial irregularities are found, initiation of appropriate legal action and recovery of the alleged excessive expenditure from responsible officers and public functionaries.
The petitioner alleged that, contrary to the official communications dated 12-01-2022 and 12-09-2024, which restricted independent fee payments to state law officers by government departments, such payments were made in violation thereof. Moreover, it was argued that these actions were an attempt to “derail the proceedings of the PIL” and divert the Court’s attention regarding the irregular grant of recognition to nursing colleges lacking requisite infrastructure.
However, the respondents denied the veracity of the allegations and called them “nothing but an attempt to shoot in the dark.” It was contended that MPNRC, being an autonomous body, was within its rights to appoint counsels and compensate them as per mutually agreed terms. It was asserted that the news items and assembly discussions bore no legal weight or substance in the present judicial context.
The Court found the petitioner’s submissions “irrelevant inasmuch as it is an expenditure made by the government during the course of litigation.” The Court reiterated that MPNRC, as an autonomous legal entity, is entitled to appoint counsels independently and disburse fees from its own funds. The Court stated that
“We do not find violation of any government policies or any other illegality… Neither any material has been placed before us as to what amount has actually been paid… nor any circular has been produced providing that a private organisation cannot engage any counsels.”
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the position of the Advocate General, appointed under Article 165 of the Constitution of India, does not bar him from representing autonomous state bodies or receiving remuneration for such services.
“Nowhere it is prescribed that the Advocate General cannot represent any autonomous body/Corporation of the State or cannot charge an independent professional fees.”
In support, the Court referenced to Sharad Datta Yadav v. Municipal Commr., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3749, where the Bombay High Court found the allegations of exorbitant legal fees “exude the vice of mala fide and that cannot be countenanced by any standard.”
The Court dismissed the application and held that
“We are firm in our opinion that such type of allegations are not required to be scrutinized… Such allegations without any fulcrum or proof… cannot be looked into by this Court… we do not find any illegality prima facie in the case of engaging lawyers by the autonomous body i.e. MPNRC and paying the professional fees as per their norms.”
[Law Students Assn. v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2961, Decided on 28-03-2025]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
