Allahabad High Court Raps Advocate for Projecting Himself as Social Activist While Filing PIL

Observing that advocates cannot disguise their clients' interests as public interest, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a PIL over a government tender dispute after finding that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was an advocate and was effectively seeking relief for a private contractor.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that the petitioner, claiming himself to be a social activist, had sought directions for the expeditious completion of an inquiry into the award of government tenders, alleging that the contracts had been granted arbitrarily and in violation of the applicable tender conditions and a government order. It was also asked to direct the authorities to withhold the retiral benefits, pension and gratuity of a government official until the departmental inquiry reached its logical conclusion.

Why did the high court hold that the PIL was not in public interest?

Answering that question, the bench said the petitioner's own conduct belied his claim of acting in public interest.

Although the petitioner had described himself as a social activist engaged in public welfare activities, court found that he had deliberately omitted to disclose that he was an advocate. This came to light from a representation he had earlier submitted to the Chief Minister, in which he identified himself as an advocate residing in Jhansi. The petitioner's counsel also admitted this fact before the court.

The judges then examined the contents of the PIL and observed that, despite its public interest label, the petitioner appeared to be aggrieved by the cancellation of a contract awarded to one private firm and its subsequent award to two other firms.

What exposed the petitioner's 'real intent' in the tender dispute?

The bench said a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the petition, particularly the representation made to the Chief Minister, exposed the petitioner's "real intent."

It pointed out that the representation did not merely seek an inquiry into the alleged irregularities. Instead, it specifically prayed that the cancelled tender be restored in favour of the original contractor after cancelling the contracts awarded to the successful bidders. Referring to this prayer, the court observed that the petitioner had effectively sought the award of a government contract to a particular private party.

"The very fact that the petitioner, an Advocate, had made a prayer for awarding contract in favour of a particular party, filing of a petition in public interest claiming himself as a social activist essentially is gross abuse of the jurisdiction of public interest litigation," the bench observed.

How did the earlier litigation influence the court's decision?

The high court also took note of the litigation history surrounding the tender.

It recorded that the private firm whose contract had been cancelled had earlier challenged the tender process through writ petitions filed by the same counsel who appeared in the present PIL. While one writ petition had been withdrawn, another remained pending before the high court. In that pending case, a division bench had already directed that the tender awarded to the successful bidder would remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

The present PIL, court observed, was filed during the court's vacation while claiming urgency, apparently in an attempt to obtain an order despite the pendency of the writ proceedings. It added that the fact that the petitioner had sought relief for the same private contractor in his representation, coupled with the earlier representation of that contractor by the same counsel, "cannot be a mere coincidence."

Holding that advocates cannot suppress their professional status and invoke PIL jurisdiction to pursue what are essentially the interests of their clients, the bench said such conduct amounted to a "gross abuse of process of PIL jurisdiction" and "cannot be permitted." It accordingly dismissed the petition and warned the petitioner to mend his ways, observing that failure to do so would invite stern action.

Case Title: Rakesh Mishra vs. State of U.P. and 4 others

Order Date: July 14, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra