Advocate Representing Party In One Case While Pursuing Relief Against Him In Another? MP High Court Asks BCI To Examine Conduct
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked the Bar Council of India to examine whether a practising advocate committed professional misconduct by representing the Administrative Member of MP Private University Regulatory Commission in petitions challenging recovery proceedings, while simultaneously pursuing public interest litigations challenging his appointment. The division bench of Acting...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked the Bar Council of India to examine whether a practising advocate committed professional misconduct by representing the Administrative Member of MP Private University Regulatory Commission in petitions challenging recovery proceedings, while simultaneously pursuing public interest litigations challenging his appointment.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal noted that the practising advocate/petitioner filed PILs in 2025 seeking investigation into the appointments. However, during pendency of these petitions, he accepted the brief of the Administrative Member (Dr Vishwas Chouhan) and represented him.
Taking note of this, the bench observed
"Since the petitioner has filed the petitions on behalf of one of the respondents i.e. Dr. Vishwas Chouhan who happens to be client in subsequent writ petitions, therefore, there is all possibility that all the information and facts mentioned in these Public Interest Litigations were collected from him which has been suppressed in para 4 of the Memo of the Writ Petition".
The bench directed;
"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 a Counsel for filing W.P. No.11220/2026 and W.P. No.8260/2026. It is a matter to be enquired by Bar Council of India whether it comes under the category of professional misconduct or not".
Per the facts of the case, the petitioner, a practising advocate, had first approached the Lokayukta challenging the appointments of the Chairman, Secretary and Administrative and Academic Members of the Commission. After the Lokayukta closed the complaints, the petitioner filed three separate writ petitions on March 26, May 20 and June 25, 2025, in the High Court seeking a probe into the said appointments.
Meanwhile, recovery proceedings were initiated against Dr Chouhan. On March 23, 2026, the petitioner appeared as Chouhan's counsel in the said writ petitions.
The counsel appearing for the State argued that said appointments were made in 2020. The counsel argued that through notification of November 4, 2025, new Chairman and Members have been appointed. Further, the counsel argued that the employees have worked in the Commission for the last 25 years and are at the end of their careers.
Noting that a Lokayukta, which is a competent authority, had enquired and closed the matter of appointments, the bench decided to close the public interest litigation. However, the bench imposed a cost of ₹25,000 each.
Case Title: Anil Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-11341-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 286
For State: Government Advocate SS Chouhan
For Commission: Advocates Anvesh Shrivastava
For Administrative Member of Commission: Advocate Aman Pandey