Allahabad High Court Says Advocate Cannot File PIL on Behalf of Clients, Warns Against Professional Misconduct
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a lawyer cannot file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on behalf of his clients under the guise of public interest, noting that such conduct could amount to professional misconduct.
The court dismissed a PIL that had sought directions to authorities to provide natural gas connections to industries, as per guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Petroleum.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra made it clear that the purpose of a PIL is to address issues affecting the wider public and not to serve as a substitute for legal proceedings initiated on behalf of private clients.
The petitioner, Surendra Kumar Sharma, had described himself in the petition as a practising advocate from Firozabad and a legal advisor to certain industries.
He also mentioned that these industries had authorised him to represent their interests before industrial authorities.
Taking note of this disclosure, the court found that the petition could not be treated as a genuine public interest matter, as the advocate was essentially pursuing the cause of specific clients rather than raising a broader issue affecting society at large.
The bench observed:
“Filing of the petition by an advocate purportedly in public interest with the assertion that he is a legal advisor of some industries and the industries have authorised him to handle the matters before the industrial authorities and, therefore, filing of the present petition before this court, necessarily takes out the petition from the purview of a public interest.”
The court further emphasised that the role of an advocate is to represent clients through appropriate legal channels, and not to transform their individual grievances into a PIL.
“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,” the court observed.
Highlighting that such actions may fall within the ambit of professional misconduct, the high court dismissed the petition as withdrawn in its order dated April 8.
At the same time, the court cautioned the petitioner against adopting a similar course in future.
The ruling reiterates the principle that Public Interest Litigation is meant to serve the larger good of society and must not be used as an alternative route for pursuing private or commercial interests.
The court’s remarks also underline the ethical boundaries expected from members of the legal profession while invoking the jurisdiction of constitutional courts.
