Madhya Pradesh High Court rejects plea alleging AG Prashant Singh was paid exorbitant professional fee

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed an application seeking inquiry into the allegations that Advocate General (AG) Prashant Singh was paid exorbitant fees for appearing in certain matters [Law Students Association v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]..The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi and Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal said such allegations without “any fulcrum or proof” cannot be looked into by the Court. “Reluctant to indulge in such frivolous allegations, we hereby dismiss the application,” the Court said in its order dated March 28..The application was moved in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Law Students Association in 2022 in relation to the nursing colleges. The petitioner’s counsel apprised the Court about State Law department’s letter to the Health department seeking information about news reports alleging that the AG was paid exorbitant professional fee in certain matters. It was also highlighted that in the present PIL too, the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (MPNRC) had reportedly paid fees to the AG and other counsel despite the government instructions that no separate fee was required to be paid to the law officers representing ‘government departments’.“This exercise is being done by the State authorities for attempting to derail the proceedings of PIL and also to divert the focus of this Court because this PIL is at the verge of conclusion and this Court had directed the respondents authorities to produce the relevant record of proceeding related to grant of recognition to the Nursing Colleges as they were not found suited and did not have the requisite infrastructure to possess the recognition,” the Court was told..However, the State denied the allegations and said there was no attempt to derail the proceedings of the PIL. Considering the submissions, the Court said,“Indeed, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner appear irrelevant inasmuch as it is an expenditure made by the government during the course of litigation. In number of petitions, the MPNRC is party, which is an autonomous body having nothing to do with the government departments and as such they are free to appoint any counsel or to pay the professional fees for the term, to which, the counsel and organisation have agreed to. It is for them to make their financial norms and the Court has nothing to do with the same.”The Court further opined that there was no violation of any government policies. It also recorded that no material was produced before it to show the exact amount paid to the AG or any other law officers.“Nor any circular has been produced providing that a private organisation cannot engage any counsels who are not in the panel of State counsels and they have to pay the requisite fees to their counsels. Therefore all those letters, which have been referred are restraining the government departments from making payment of independent fees to the law officer(s) of the State but autonomous bodies, Corporations, legal bodies, government companies of the State having its autonomy and they can engage their counsel for their own funds and they are also free to engage the Advocate General and other law officers of the State and independent payment of professional fees, according to their norms, can be made to the engaged counsel, whether it is the Advocate General or any other law officers of the State,” the Court added..Due process of law followed in Khargone demolition: Madhya Pradesh Advocate General Prashant Singh [Watch video].Advocate General is appointed under Article 165 of the Constitution, holds office during the pleasure of the Governor and receives such remuneration as the Governor may determine, the Court observed, adding that,“Nowhere it is prescribed that the Advocate General cannot represent any autonomous body/Corporation of the State or cannot charge an independent professional fees.”The Court thus prima facie opined that there was no illegality in engagement of lawyers by MPNRC and payment of professional fees as per the norms.“Mulling over the situation, 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,” the Bench said, while refusing to entertain the application.Read Bar and Bench's 2022 interview with Prashant Singh here..[Read Order]