Lawyers Should Not Pressurise Court For Favourable Order To Save Their Fees: MP HC

It is most imperative to note that while ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to professionalism and ethics in the legal profession of lawyer, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kushi & Associates vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others in Writ Petition No. 22392/2024 that was pronounced as recently as on August 2, 2024 condemned a lawyer who told the Court that if his case is dismissed, he would stand to lose his legal fee. We must note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia said that an advocate’s profession is not a business or commercial activity that they pressurize the court for a favourable order so that they can recover their fee from their client. Very rightly so!

Plainly speaking, the Bench propounded clearly that, “They are supposed to put forward the case of their client by exercising their professional skills, but they should not try to make the profession, a commercial activity. They cannot pressurize the Court to pass a favourable order, so that they can recover the fee from their client. The Courts are not supposed to be concerned about the recovery of fee of an Advocate from his client… Accordingly, the aforesaid conduct of counsel for petitioner in making unparliamentary comments is hereby condemned.” Absolutely right! We need to note here that the Jabalpur High Court was hearing an architectural firm’s plea against its non-inclusion in the list of firms selected for the renovation of colleges in Madhya Pradesh.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

(I) Issue a writ in the nature of ‘Certiorari’, quashing the impugned order of allotment dated 24.07.2024, (Annex.P-5), passed by the respondent No.4.

(II) Issue a further writ in the nature of ‘Mandamus’, directing the respondent No.3 to 5, to include the name of petitioner in Select List/ Allotment List dated 24.07.2024 (Annx. P-5), passed by the respondent No.4.

(III) Issue a further writ in the nature of ‘Mandamus’, directing the competent authorities of the State of M.P. to peruse and enquire the entire matter from the respondent No.3 to 5, pertaining to the petitioner and take the legal action against illegality.

(IV) To call for entire records from the respondent No.3 to 5, pertaining to petitioner and also take strict penal action against the illegality committed by them.

(V) Any other relief/order/direction/prod which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 stating precisely that, “It is the case of petitioner that respondents had issued an Expression of Interest & Concept Design Invitation for Development / Renovation / Retrofitting / Additional construction works of 55 P.M. Excellence Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As per the expression of interest in concept design invitation, budget provision is around Rupees 336 Crores and EPCO was entrusted to select multiple Architectural Consultants / Firms and provide comprehensive architectural services for the project. As per the eligibility criteria set for the project were that the aspirant must have minimum 10 years of experience from the date of registration with the Council of Architecture, and must have designed and executed minimum 3 College building projects, must have designed and executed minimum of one renovation/ additional construction/ retrofitting projects, and also must have executed at least 3 other single projects of any kind and execution of the project more than Rs.5 Crores will be given weightage / preference during allotment of work and accordingly, presentation of work profile of Firms, along with the Design Concept was called from the Architects during presentations. It was also mentioned that the Firms selected shall be awarded the project on consultancy fees of 2% of project cost. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that although the petitioner was the most eligible Firm for allotment of work but when the final list of selected architectural firms was issued, no College was allotted to petitioner firm.”

As we see, the Bench points out in para 3 that, “Except by making a bald statement that architectural firms who have been allotted different Colleges are not entitled to submit their work profile, nothing has been pointed out in the Writ Petition to show that the selected architectural firms do not fulfill the eligibility criteria.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “Except by submitting that the petitioner is the most suitable architectural firm, nothing was submitted by counsel for petitioner as to how the architectural firms which have been selected and have been allotted the Colleges are ineligible. Neither there is any pleading in that regard nor any submission was made by counsel for petitioner thereby pointing out ineligibility of the selected architectural firms.”

Do further note, the Bench also notes in para 26 that, “As already pointed out, except making a bald statement that the selected architectural firms are not entitled to submit their work profile as they do not have eligibility as per the norms prescribed by EPCO, nothing has been pointed out to substantiate such a bald statement.”

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench observes in para 27 that, “The entire Writ Petition is based on the pleadings thereby praising the petitioner itself. Whether the petitioner was eligible or not is not the primary question but the question is as to whether other architectural firms were ineligible or not. If other architectural firms were also eligible, then this Court cannot substitute its opinion thereby overruling the satisfaction of the experts regarding the suitability of the architectural firms. Petitioner has not filed even a single document to show that the selected architectural firms do not fulfill the eligibility criteria.”

It would be worthwhile to mention that the Bench points out in para 29 that, “As already pointed out, except by praising itself, petitioner has not laid down any foundation to point out that any of the selected architectural firm was not eligible. So far as the suitability of eligible aspirants who otherwise fulfill all the eligibility criteria is concerned, it has to be left to the discretion of the Authorities and this Court cannot override the decision/satisfaction recorded by the Authorities.”

Further, the Bench brings out in para 32 that, “When the prayer for adjournment was refused, certain comments were passed by counsel for petitioner which were unparliamentary and were not expected from a Lawyer. However the gist of the comments was that the fee of this case is the livelihood of the Advocate and in case if it is dismissed then he would lose certain money (This is the summary assessed by the Court and not the actual words spoken by the petitioner. The actual words are not being reproduced).”

While citing the most relevant case law, the Bench then postulates in para 33 that, “The Supreme Court in the case of Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik Vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. Decided on 14/05/2024 in Civil Appeal No.2646/2009 has held as under:-

“29. It is thus well recognized in catena of decisions that the legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature but is essentially a service oriented, noble profession. It cannot be gainsaid that the role of Advocates is indispensable in the Justice Delivery System. An evolution of jurisprudence to keep our Constitution vibrant is possible only with the positive contribution of the Advocates. The Advocates are expected to be fearless and independent for protecting the rights of citizens, for upholding the Rule of law and also for protecting the Independence of Judiciary. People repose immense faith in the Judiciary, and the Bar being an integral part of the Judicial System has been assigned a very crucial role for preserving the independence of the Judiciary, and in turn the very democratic set up of the Nation. The Advocates are perceived to be the intellectuals amongst the elites and social activists amongst the downtrodden. That is the reason they are expected to act according to the principles of uberrima fides i.e., the utmost good faith, integrity, fairness and loyalty while handling the legal proceedings of his client. Being a responsible officer of the court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice, an Advocate owes his duty not only to his client but also to the court as well as to the opposite side.

30. The legal profession is different from the other professions also for the reason that what the Advocates do, affects not only an individual but the entire administration of justice, which is the foundation of the civilized society. It must be remembered that the legal profession is a solemn and serious profession. It has always been held in very high esteem because of the stellar role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen the judicial system in the country. Their services in making the judicial system efficient, effective and credible, and in creating a strong and impartial Judiciary, which is one of the three pillars of the Democracy, could not be compared with the services rendered by other professionals. Therefore, having regard to the role, status and duties of the Advocates as the professionals, we are of the opinion that the legal profession is sui generis i.e unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession.”

Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 35 stating that, “Thus, the profession of an Advocate is not a business or commercial activity. They are supposed to put forward the case of their client by exercising their professional skills, but they should not try to make the profession, a commercial activity. They cannot pressurize the Court to pass a favorable order, so that they can recover the fee from their client. The Courts are not supposed to be concerned about the recovery of fee of an Advocate from his client.”

As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 36 that, “Accordingly, the aforesaid conduct of counsel for petitioner in making unparliamentary comments is hereby condemned.”

Further, the Bench then directs in para 37 that, “Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.”

Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes aptly by holding in para 38 that, “Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.”

All told, the gist of this notable judgment is that the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has made it abundantly clear that the profession of a lawyer is not a business or commercial activity. It was also made clear by the Court that lawyers should certainly desist from pressurizing the Court for the purpose of obtaining a favourable order in order to save their fees that they get from clients. It was also clarified making it absolutely clear that lawyers must definitely display their professional skills while presenting the case before the Court but should not try to make it a commercial activity by only being concerned about obtaining a favourable order from the court to save their fees somehow or anyhow! It thus therefore merits no reiteration whatsoever that this undoubtedly all the lawyers in India must definitely always follow most strictly as has been laid down most effectively by the Single Judge Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice GS Ahluwalia so effectively, elegantly and effectively in this leading case!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.