Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an advocate to get relief for his clients, the Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra, J., dismissed the PIL, holding that an advocate cannot plead as a petitioner in a PIL to advance the cause of his clients.
Background
The petitioner was a practicing lawyer in Firozabad and a legal advisor to some industries and industrialists situated in Firozabad who had authorised him to handle the matters before the industrial authorities. He filed the present PIL seeking direction to the respondents to supply natural gas connection to the industries based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, i.e., he filed the present PIL as a petitioner to advance a cause of his clients.
Analysis
The Court noted that the petitioner, an advocate, filed the present petition purportedly in public interest with the assertion that he was the legal advisor of some industries, and the industries had authorised him to handle the matters before the industrial authorities. Thus, filing the present petition took it out of the purview of a public interest. The Court held that an advocate, who is approached by his clients for redressal of the grievance, cannot be permitted to become a petitioner and file a PIL advancing the cause of his clients.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, warning the petitioner that such conduct might amount to professional misconduct.
[Surendra Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 874 of 2026, decided on 8-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Radhey Shyam Dwivedi
For the respondent: A.S.G.I., A.K. Goyal, A.C.S.C., Madhur Prakash
