The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition that sought an inquiry into allegedly “exorbitant fees” charged by the Madhya Pradesh Advocate General’s Office (AG of Madhya Pradesh) and other state law officers.
These fees were claimed to have been charged in connection with litigation involving the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (MPNRC). The petition was filed after a previous challenge at the High Court level had already failed.
Why the plea was dismissed
A Bench comprising Surya Kant (Chief Justice of India) and Joymalya Bagchi expressed its inclination to dismiss the petition. The petitioner eventually chose to withdraw the plea after hearing the Bench’s inclination.
The Court noted that there was no concrete evidence showing how much fee was paid, or any statutory violation — in other words, the petition lacked “any fulcrum or proof” to justify a probe.
The Court also recognised that MPNRC, being an autonomous body (and not a direct governmental department), was free under law (under Article 165 of the Constitution) to appoint counsel and fix their professional fees.
On a prima facie basis, the Court found “no illegality” in the arrangement of engaging lawyers and paying fees to them.
Background
The controversy traces back to a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) filed by a law-student association in 2022, alleging that the AG and other law officers were paid “exorbitant professional fees” by MPNRC for representing it in legal matters, including those relating to recognition of nursing colleges.
In April 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had dismissed the application for inquiry, calling the allegations “irrelevant” and observing that autonomous bodies may engage and remunerate their own counsel.
The recent SC verdict essentially upholds that view and closes the matter — at least for now. The Court’s decision affirms the autonomy of bodies like MPNRC in hiring and paying counsel, as long as there is no established statutory or constitutional breach.
Earlier the petitioner had claimed that government instructions clearly stated that no separate fees should be paid to law officers representing government departments. However, the Advocate General and other lawyers were allegedly compensated by the state organisation.
In April, the division bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi and Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal firmly rejected the plea, stating, “Such allegations without any fulcrum or proof of making payment of exorbitant professional fees to the Advocate General cannot be looked into by this Court.”
The court further noted that such claims do not hold legal merit and should not be used to derail the proceedings of the PIL concerning the regulation and recognition of nursing colleges.
The petitioner contended that the government exchequer suffered huge losses due to unnecessary expenditures. The plea sought a government inquiry into the matter and demanded that responsible officers and public functionaries be held accountable.
It was argued that the Advocate General was paid despite official directives prohibiting separate payments to law officers.
The petitioner suspected that this was a deliberate attempt by state authorities to divert the court’s focus, as the PIL regarding nursing colleges was nearing conclusion.
The State Government categorically denied the allegations, stating that the news reports and documents presented by the petitioner had no solid foundation, that the Legislative Assembly discussion on this issue did not impact legal proceedings.
Also, it stated that the allegations were baseless and an attempt to shoot in the dark. After hearing both sides, the court ruled that the petitioner’s claims were irrelevant in the context of government expenditure during litigation.
The judgment emphasised that MPNRC is an autonomous body and is not bound by government policies regarding legal fee payments, autonomous bodies, corporations, and legal entities in the state are free to engage their own legal counsel and that there was no evidence to prove that the payments made violated any laws or government policies.
No circular or rule was presented that prohibits private organizations from hiring counsels outside the state panel, it said.
