Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Inquiry Into Fees Charged By MP Advocate General In Nursing Council Matter

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition seeking inquiry into the alleged exorbitant fees charged by the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh and other State Law officers in a litigation related to the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (MPNRC).

After a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed inclination to dismiss the matter, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition.

The petition was filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which dismissed the petition observing that the allegations were frivolous, unsubstantiated, and unsupported by any material showing what fees were actually paid or that any rule was violated.

Today, when the matter was taken, Advocate Varun Thakur, for the petitioner, sought time to produce certain documents. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, opposing the petition, submitted that it is liable to be dismissed with costs as there was something "more than what meets the eye."

Thakur submitted that the issue related to the public exchequer. "So what?" CJI Kant asked. SG pointed out that the petitioner before the Supreme Court was not the original petitioner in the High Court. There was a litigation related to the Nursing Council in which the petitioner intervened as an applicant raising the issue of fees. "The Court dismissed it saying we are not affected by what fees they are charging, and secondly, saying it is none of your business," SG said.

"What is your concern?" CJI asked the petitioner. "We are for saving the public money. They are enjoying huge bungalows, security and charging huge money," Thakur said.

"For the State Government, the Advocate General charges a symbolic fee..." CJI said. "Nobody has the figure," SG stated.

Thakur submitted that the petitioner is a practising advocate. "More the reason to be responsible," SG replied. "Advise her not to file this kind of petition," CJI told the petitioner's counsel.

The High Court said that MPNRC is an autonomous body, free to engage its own counsel,including the Advocate General,and to determine professional fees from its own funds. Government circulars restricting separate fees to State law officers apply only to government departments, not autonomous bodies.

The Court noted that the office of the Advocate General, under Article 165, is not barred from representing autonomous entities.  

Finding no prima facie illegality and declining to expand the scope of the PIL, the Court dismissed the application as frivolous.

"we are firm in our opinion that such type of allegations are not required to be scrutinized nor would such allegations adversely affect the minds of this Court, which can cause any apprehensive derailment of the proceedings already initiated. Such allegations without any fulcrum or proof of making payment of exorbitant professional fees to the Advocate General of other law officer(s) cannot be looked into by this Court. Indeed, we do not want to enlarge the scope of the case and even otherwise, we do not find any illegality prima facie in the case of engaging lawyers by the autonomous body i.e. MPNRC and paying the professional fees as per their norms," the High Court observed.

Case : KAVITA AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH | D No. 55167/2025