Law Officer Doesn't Commit Misconduct By Placing Relevant Facts Before Court, Even If They Favour Another Party: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a law officer does not commit professional misconduct by bringing relevant facts to the notice of the Court, even if those facts incidentally favour a party whom the Law Officer does not represent, provided the assistance is rendered in the bona fide discharge of official duties. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 310]The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal made the observation while dismissing a writ appeal filed by the Editor of Deeply News, who had accused a Deputy Advocate General (DAG) of acting to protect the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) by informing a Single Judge that the writ petition was the third round of litigation concerning the same dispute."Upon consideration of the pleadings and the record, we find that no cause of action arises against the Deputy Advocate General. The allegations levelled against him are wholly unsupported by any factual foundation. The record clearly demonstrates that the Deputy Advocate General neither filed any Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Sanjay Mishra nor appeared as his counsel. He merely discharged his official duties as a Law Officer by assisting the Court and apprising it that the present proceedings constituted the third round of litigation concerning the same dispute. Such assistance to the Court, rendered in the bona fide discharge of official functions, cannot be construed as professional misconduct, a breach of legal ethics, or a violation of Section 8 of the Advocates Act". The appellant contended that the DAG made prejudicial and unauthorised submissions in favour of the CMHO despite not representing him before the Single Judge, thereby violating the legal ethics and Section 8 of the Advocates Act. A review petition was also filed by the petitioner alleging the same. The counsel for the appellant claimed that he had submitted complaints before the Lokayukta in December 2024 and June 2925 alleging irregularities against the CMHO, but no action was taken. Therefore, he approached the High Court seeking direction for an independent inquiry via a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs after finding that the petitioner had failed to disclose earlier rounds of litigation seeking substantially similar relief. The Court also observed that an attempt was being made to harass the CMHO.In the present appeal, the petitioner contended that the Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition as repetitive despite an independent cause of action. The petitioner further argued that adverse remarks had been made against his counsel without granting an opportunity of hearing.Opposing the appeal, the respondents contended that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact that earlier writ petitions and appeals on the same subject had been filed through the office of the same advocate. They submitted that such suppression disentitled the appellant from seeking equitable relief.The Court noted that earlier writ petitions raising similar allegations against the CMHO had been filed by different petitioners through the office of the same advocate. It further noted that the Deputy Advocate General had merely informed the Court of this litigation history and had never entered appearance or filed a vakalatnama on behalf of the CMHO.It noted that the DAG had merely discharged his duty by informing the court regarding repeated petitions on the same cause of action. Holding that the allegations against the Deputy Advocate General were wholly unsupported by any material, the Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the writ appeal.Case Title: Prahalad Sahu v State of Madhya Pradesh, WA-2454-2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 310For State: Additional Advocate General Harpreet Singh Ruprah with Advocate Akash Malpani For Lokayukta Organization: Advocate Abhinav ShrivastavaClick here to read/download the Order

Law Officer Doesn't Commit Misconduct By Placing Relevant Facts Before Court, Even If They Favour Another Party: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Law Officer Doesn't Commit Misconduct By Placing Relevant Facts Before Court, Even If They Favour Another Party: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers