MP High Court Restores Appeal: Instead Of Imposing Costs, Asks Counsel For Community Service

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has chosen community service over costs while restoring a writ appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, asking counsel to spend an hour with children at a Bhopal mercy home and report on what he sees.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B. P. Sharma, in an order dated September 15, 2026, also used the occasion to push for what it called a "Social Audit" of institutions that shelter orphans, the elderly, persons with disabilities and victims of crime.

The court was hearing Misc. Civil Case filed by Gopal Krishna Vijayvargiya and others against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The applicants sought restoration of a writ appeal that the Registrar (J-1) had dismissed for want of prosecution on May 5, 2026. That dismissal followed a common conditional order passed on March 11, 2026 by a coordinate division bench.

Advocate Ajay Kumar Shukla, appearing for the applicants, argued that the dismissal was "neither deliberate nor intentional" and arose from circumstances beyond the control of the applicants and their arguing counsel. Government Advocate Rajesh Tiwari appeared for the State.

The bench found the explanation credible. It held that the reasons appeared "genuine and bonafide" and reiterated the settled position that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault of counsel. Citing M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam and Dindayal Bansal v. Gwalior Nagar Tatha Gram Vikas Pradhikaran, it allowed the application.

Instead of imposing costs, the bench suggested that counsel visit Bal Niketan Trust, near Nadra Bus Stand on Hamidia Road in Bhopal, carry food items, snacks or fruits worth Rs 2,500 and spend an hour with the children, inmates and families living there. Such service, it said, would be "satisfying to the soul" and would tell differently abled children that society cares for them and that they are not "children of the Lesser God".

The bench stressed the suggestion was "not punitive in nature" and that compliance was at counsel's discretion. Counsel, "graceful enough in his disposition" in the court's words, readily accepted it and undertook that the applicants would visit the home, carry food worth Rs 2,500 and spend an hour with the residents. The court hoped the visit would happen within 15 days, with any Government Advocate or other advocate welcome to accompany him.

The order reads less like a penalty and more like an invitation. Calling the matter "a test case" to give the concept of Social Audit "a chance to gain grounds", the bench said responsible and resourceful members of society, including administrators, doctors, chartered accountants and lawyers, should take responsibility for visiting orphanages, old age homes, mercy homes and one stop centres. Such visits, it said, would help them understand the inmates' plight and contribute to improving their lives.

The bench also flagged accountability. It noted that managements of such institutions "sometime misbehave or cause mischief" to inmates, especially children and females, and said regular public visits would keep them cautious that society is "keeping eyes over their working". The evolution and effective implementation of Social Audit, it said, was "the need of hour", and policy makers, especially the Department of Women and Child Development, the Department of Social Justice and the Police Department, must come out with a "tangible solution".

Counsel has been directed to submit a report within fifteen days on his visit, describing his experience and the status of the mercy home, with suggestions, if any. The writ appeal will be restored to its original number on submission of the report and affidavit accepted by counsel, with the application allowed subject to that compliance.

A copy of the order will also go to senior State officials, including the Women and Child Development and Social Justice departments, and to the High Court's Juvenile Justice Committee, "for information and contemplation".

Case Title: Gopal Krishna Vijayvargiya and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B. P. Sharma