Public Interest Litigation Is Not Maintainable Following Disposal of Complaints by Competent Authorities and Suppression of Professional Conflicts

The Petitioner, a practicing Advocate and LL.M. student, filed three Writ Petitions in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointments of officials within the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission.

The Petitioner alleged organized corruption, misuse of post, and embezzlement of public funds regarding vehicle allowances.

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

During proceedings, it was revealed that while these PILs were pending, the Petitioner appeared as counsel for one of the respondents (Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan) in separate writ petitions (W.P. No. 11220/2026 and W.P. No. 8260/2026) challenging recoveries against said respondent.

Furthermore, the challenged officials had completed their terms, and new appointments had already been notified on 04.11.2025.

The court applied the principles governing the maintainability of Public Interest Litigation, specifically the requirement of uberrima fides (utmost good faith) and the prohibition against filing PILs for oblique motives or while suppressing material facts.

Standards of professional conduct for advocates as regulated by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh regarding professional misconduct and conflict of interest.

The Court observed that since the Lokayukta had already investigated the allegations and closed the matter, the PIL lacked a surviving cause of action for judicial intervention.

The Court found a severe breach of legal ethics and procedural propriety because the Petitioner, despite impleading Dr. Vishwas Kumar Chouhan as a respondent and making corruption allegations against him, later accepted a brief to represent the same individual as a client.

The Court reasoned that this created a high probability that the PIL was filed using information collected from the client, which was not disclosed to the court, thereby amounting to suppression of facts.

The Court noted that the challenge to the appointments was largely infructuous as the respondents had completed their tenures and were replaced by new appointees.

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

The Court referred the matter of the Petitioner's conduct to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh to determine if his actions constituted professional misconduct.