The Madhya Pradesh High Court has raised questions over an advocate's professional conduct after finding that he later represented a person whom he had earlier named as a respondent in his own PILs. Observing that the issue may require examination by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, the Court dismissed all three PILs filed by the advocate and imposed costs of ₹25,000 on each petition.
Background of the Case
The three writ petitions were filed in March, May and June 2025. In the petitions, Anil Singh sought directions for an inquiry into the appointments of officials of the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission. He also requested investigations by agencies such as the Lokayukta or CBI into alleged misuse of office and public funds, besides seeking registration of criminal cases and seizure of records.
During the hearing, the State informed the Court that the petitioner had already approached the Lokayukta with similar complaints before filing the PILs. Those complaints had been examined and disposed of by the competent authority.
Court's Observations
The Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal noted that once the competent authority had inquired into the allegations and closed the complaints, there was no justification for entertaining the PILs on the same issues.
The Court also took note of another aspect that emerged during the proceedings. It was informed that Anil Singh had later appeared as counsel for Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan in two separate writ petitions, despite having earlier arrayed him as a respondent and made allegations against him in the PILs.
The Bench observed that whether such conduct amounts to professional misconduct "is a matter to be enquired by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh."
The Court further recorded that the concerned officials had been appointed in 2020, their tenure had substantially concluded, and new Chairpersons and Members had already been appointed through a notification dated November 4, 2025. It also observed that there was a possibility that information used in the PILs had been obtained from one of the respondents, a fact which had allegedly not been disclosed in the petitions.
Court's Decision
Finding no merit in continuing the proceedings, the High Court dismissed all three writ petitions.
The Bench directed the petitioner to pay ₹25,000 as costs in each of the three petitions.
Case Details:
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
