Suppressing Advocate Status To File PILs In Clients' Interests Is 'Gross Abuse': Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea while observing that suppressing one's status as an advocate to file a petition that essentially advances a client's interests amounts to a "gross abuse of the Court's PIL jurisdiction".
Warning the petitioner, an advocate by profession, to mend his ways, the Court observed that such misuse of the PIL mechanism cannot be permitted.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed the order while hearing a PIL filed by a petitioner claiming himself to be a social activist.
The petitioner sought directions for expeditious conclusion of an inquiry into the alleged arbitrary award of tenders and for action against the concerned officials. He also sought withholding of the retiral benefits of one of the respondents pending the departmental inquiry.
At the outset, the Bench noted that although the petitioner described himself in the writ petition as a social activist actively engaged in public welfare activities, he had chosen not to disclose that he was an advocate.
The Court found that the representation submitted by him to the Chief Minister clearly identified him as an advocate residing in Jhansi, a fact which was admitted by his counsel during the hearing.
The Court further observed that the overall contents of the PIL reflected that the petitioner was aggrieved by the cancellation of a contract earlier granted to Ms Bajpai Traders and its subsequent award to two other firms.
On closely examining the representation annexed to the petition, the Bench said the petitioner's real intent stood exposed.
It noted that the representation specifically sought cancellation of the subsequent tender process and prayed that the contract be granted to Ms Bajpai Traders besides seeking suspension of the concerned official and a high-level inquiry.
Highlighting this aspect, the Court observed:
"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 also took note of the fact that Ms Bajpai Traders had earlier challenged the cancellation of the contract through writ petitions filed by the same counsel appearing in the present PIL.
While the first petition had been withdrawn, the second remained pending in which a Division Bench had already directed that the tender awarded to the private respondent would abide by the outcome of that writ petition.
According to the Court, the present PIL appeared to have been filed during the court vacations in an attempt to seek some order despite the pendency of the earlier proceedings.
The Court further remarked that the fact that the petitioner had sought relief for M/s Bajpai Traders in his representation while the counsel representing him had earlier appeared for the same firm in the writ petitions cannot be a mere coincidence.
The Court further made a strong observation on the misuse of PIL jurisdiction in the following terms:
"Filing of PILs by Advocates suppressing their status and claiming public interest which essentially is interest of their clients is gross abuse of process of PIL jurisdiction which cannot be permitted".
Consequently, the Court dismissed the PIL and warned the petitioner to mend his ways, observing that stern action would be taken in case of any such future conduct.
Case title - Rakesh Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 476