Conflict of interest and suppression of material facts by a petitioner/advocate warrant dismissal of PIL with costs.

The Petitioner, a practicing Advocate and LL.M. student, filed three writ petitions in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission.

He challenged the appointment of the Chairman and members, alleging misuse of power, corruption, and embezzlement of public funds.

Prior to the petitions, the Petitioner had filed complaints with the Lokayukta, which were subsequently closed by the competent authority.

During proceedings, it was revealed that the Petitioner was simultaneously representing one of the respondents (Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan) as a counsel in separate writ petitions (W.P. No. 11220/2026 and W.P. No. 8260/2026) challenging recovery orders against said respondent.

1. Whether a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable when the competent authority (Lokayukta) has already inquired into and closed the subject complaints.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s conduct of filing a PIL against a party while simultaneously acting as their legal counsel in other matters constitutes a conflict of interest or suppression of facts.

The Court applied the principles governing Public Interest Litigation, specifically the requirement of uberrima fides (utmost good faith) and the prohibition against filing petitions based on suppressed information or personal interests.

The ethical standards for legal practitioners under the Bar Council of India rules regarding professional misconduct, particularly concerning conflicts of interest and the duty of disclosure to the Court.

The Court observed that since the Lokayukta had already investigated the allegations and closed the matter, the PIL was not liable to be entertained.

The Court found a severe breach of professional ethics: the Petitioner had impleaded Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan as a respondent and made allegations against him in the PIL, yet accepted a brief to represent him in subsequent litigation.

This led the Court to conclude that the information used in the PIL was likely obtained through the client-advocate relationship and suppressed in the pleadings.

Additionally, the Court noted that the challenged appointments were near-completion or already replaced by new members via a notification dated 04.11.2025, rendering the challenge largely infructuous.

The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for each petition (totaling Rs. 75,000/-) on the Petitioner.

The Court also highlighted that the Petitioner’s conduct regarding his dual role as a petitioner and counsel for a respondent is a matter for the Bar Council of India to investigate for professional misconduct.