The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea that alleged Advocate General Prashant Singh received and was paid "exorbitant professional fees" for appearing in legal matters, including those related to the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (MPNRC).
The petitioner had claimed that government instructions clearly stated that no separate fees should be paid to law officers representing government departments. However, the Advocate General and other lawyers were allegedly compensated by the state organization.
Read also: Baseless Allegations Of Communal Bias In Transfer Can Disrupt Administration: MP High Court
The division bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi and Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal firmly rejected the plea, stating:
"Such allegations without any fulcrum or proof of making payment of exorbitant professional fees to the Advocate General cannot be looked into by this Court."
The court further noted that such claims do not hold legal merit and should not be used to derail the proceedings of the PIL concerning the regulation and recognition of nursing colleges.
- The petitioner contended that the government exchequer suffered huge losses due to unnecessary expenditures.
- The plea sought a government inquiry into the matter and demanded that responsible officers and public functionaries be held accountable.
- It was argued that the Advocate General was paid despite official directives prohibiting separate payments to law officers.
- The petitioner suspected that this was a deliberate attempt by state authorities to divert the court’s focus, as the PIL regarding nursing colleges was nearing conclusion.
The State Government categorically denied the allegations, stating that:
- The news reports and documents presented by the petitioner had no solid foundation.
- The Legislative Assembly discussion on this issue did not impact legal proceedings.
- The allegations were baseless and an attempt to shoot in the dark.
After hearing both sides, the court ruled that the petitioner’s claims were irrelevant in the context of government expenditure during litigation. The judgment emphasized the following points:
- MPNRC is an autonomous body and is not bound by government policies regarding legal fee payments.
- Autonomous bodies, corporations, and legal entities in the state are free to engage their own legal counsel.
- There was no evidence to prove that the payments made violated any laws or government policies.
- No circular or rule was presented that prohibits private organizations from hiring counsels outside the state panel.
Read also: Madhya Pradesh HC Supports Barricades at 56 Dukan to Ease Traffic Congestion
The court clarified that Article 165 of the Indian Constitution does not restrict the Advocate General from representing an autonomous body or receiving professional fees.
It also cited a precedent from the Bombay High Court regarding the payment of high legal fees by the Municipal Corporation in the Kangana Ranaut demolition case, where the court dismissed similar allegations as mala fide and without legal merit.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, refusing to entertain "frivolous allegations," dismissed the application outright.
"We do not find any illegality prima facie in engaging lawyers by the autonomous body i.e. MPNRC and paying the professional fees as per their norms."
The ruling reinforces that autonomous bodies have the right to engage legal professionals as per their financial norms, and any allegations without proof cannot be entertained.
Case Title: Law Students Association Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, WP No. 1080 Of 2022
