MP High Court Demands Action Against Lawyer Who Named Official In PIL, Then Argued His Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed three public interest litigations filed by a practicing advocate against office-bearers of the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission, imposing costs of Rs 25,000 on each petition after finding that the petitioner had, in the meantime, appeared as counsel for one of the very respondents he had accused of corruption.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal was hearing three connected writ petitions filed by Anil Singh, who described himself as a practicing advocate as well as an LLM student, against the State of Madhya Pradesh and other authorities.

The petitions, filed on March 26, 2025, May 20, 2025 and June 25, 2025, alleged misuse of official position and public money by the Chairman and members of the Commission, and sought a court-monitored inquiry by the Lokayukta or the CBI, along with registration of a criminal case and seizure of records relating to vehicle fare allowance payments.

In the first petition, the petitioner claimed the future of "more than 1 lakh students" was at stake and sought an inquiry by the higher education department into the appointment of the Commission's chairmen. The other two petitions alleged "organized, planned and gross irregularity," asking the court to direct the Lokayukta or CBI to investigate, register a criminal case, and constitute a committee to punish the officials responsible.

The bench noted at the outset that the petitioner had already lodged a detailed complaint with the Lokayukta before approaching the court, and that this complaint stood disposed of. "Once the Competent Authority has enquired into the matter and closed the same, then Public Interest Litigation is certainly not liable to be entertained," the court observed.

What proved decisive, however, was a submission made by Dr S S Chouhan, the Government Advocate appearing for the State, who informed the bench that the petitioner had, on March 25, 2026, filed two separate writ petitions, WP No. 11220/2026 and WP No. 8260/2026, as counsel on behalf of Dr Vishwas Kumar Chouhan, challenging a recovery ordered against him. Dr Vishwas Kumar Chouhan happened to be one of the very respondents arrayed and accused of wrongdoing in the pending PILs.

When questioned by the bench, Anil Singh admitted that these two petitions were filed after the PILs, but the court found this troubling rather than exculpatory. "Once the petitioner has impleaded Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan as respondent and made allegations against him, then he should not have accepted the brief as Counsel," the bench held, adding that "it is a matter to be enquired by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh whether it comes under the category of professional misconduct or not."

The court went further, holding that the overlap raised doubts about the very foundation of the PILs. It observed that "there is all possibility that all the information and facts mentioned in these Public Interest Litigations were collected from him," referring to Dr Vishwas Kumar Chouhan, and that this had been suppressed in the memo of the writ petitions.

On the substantive allegations, the bench also noted that the respondents named in the petitions had been appointed in 2020 and had already served their full five-year term, with a fresh Chairman and members appointed vide notification dated November 4, 2025. This, the court reasoned, further diluted the urgency and purpose behind the litigation.

Advocate Anvesh Shrivastava appeared for MP Private University Regulatory Commission while Advocate Aman Pandey represented Dr Vikas Kumar Chouhan in all three matters.

The bench finally dismissed all three petitions directing the petitioner to pay costs of Rs 25,000 in each matter.

Case Title: Anil Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others with connected matters

Date of Order: July 16, 2026

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal