Summary of this article
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition by a lawyer seeking ₹1 crore as legal fees and expenses for cases he claimed to have filed to “save” former Chief Justice of India Justice Dipak Misra from humiliation.
The court noted that the advocate had filed the cases voluntarily and was not authorised or appointed by the government or any institution.
As there was no legal basis for compensation, the bench refused to grant relief and dismissed the plea.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking ₹1 crore in legal fees and expenses, claiming that he had filed multiple cases in the Supreme Court to “save” former Chief Justice of India Justice Dipak Misra from humiliation and removal.
The petition, heard by a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla at the Lucknow bench of the court, sought directions to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to compensate the lawyer for what he described as his legal efforts. According to the petitioner, the cases were filed in the Supreme Court to prevent alleged humiliation, insult, and attempts to remove the then CJI from office.
However, the court found no legal grounds for the claim. It noted that the advocate had initiated the litigation on his own volition and had not been engaged by the Union government or any other authority to represent them in the matter.
The Union government had earlier clarified that the petitioner was not part of its panel of advocates and that the cases referred to by him had been filed independently. As such, there was no contractual or legal obligation for the government to pay him any professional fee or reimburse expenses.
The bench observed that compensation for legal services can only arise where there is a recognised professional engagement or mandate. In the absence of such an arrangement, a claim for payment cannot be sustained merely on the basis that the petitioner had filed cases in what he believed to be the public interest.
Finding the plea devoid of merit, the court dismissed the petition, effectively rejecting the lawyer’s demand for ₹1 crore.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s consistent position that self-initiated litigation cannot become the basis for monetary claims against the state, especially where no formal engagement exists between the parties involved.
