'No Record Of His Engagement By Law Ministry': Allahabad HC On Lawyer's Plea For ₹1 Crore Legal Fees For 'Saving' Ex-CJI From 'Insult'

In the order, made public earlier today, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred to the Ministry's communication sent to the petitioner stating that the cases in question, for which he is seeking Rs. 1 Crore in legal fees, were actually and factually filed on his own volition, and, consequently, the Government of India is not liable to defray any expenses incurred by him, including the fee, as claimed.

The said communication also added that the government of India has an extensive panel of advocates at the Supreme Court of India to represent the government's interests and that the petitioner was not included on the department panel at the Supreme Court of India.

In light of this communication, the Court dismissed the plea as it observed thus:

“There is nothing on record to indicate that the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Judicial Section), Government of India had ever engaged the petitioner for filing the six cases, referred in the pleadings, therefore, in view of the reasons given in the communication dated 26.7.2024, we find absolutely no reason to grant the reliefs prayed for herein. The writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.”

Furthermore, the bench also rejected his prayer for the issuance of a certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India as it did not find it to be a fit case for the issuance of any such certificate.

“…in our opinion, the case does not involve any substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution of India nor does it involve any substantial question of law of general importance,” the bench observed as it dismissed his plea.

The petition in brief

In his writ petition, the Petitioner in person, Advocate Ashok Pandey, had also challenged the rejection of his representation, which he had submitted to the President of India on February 28, 2024, requesting Rs. 1 crore for the legal services rendered by him in 'saving' the then CJI Misra.

He claimed that his representation was subsequently forwarded to the Union Law Ministry, which was rejected by the Ministry, and this amounted to the insult of the president of India.

Before the Court, he argued that it was impermissible for the Union Law Ministry to reject the 'reference' sent to it by the Hon'ble President of India. He asserted that he had submitted his representation to the President since the President is the appointing authority of the Chief Justice of India.

"The Hon'ble president had sent my representation to the Ministry to make payment to me. Then how can the Ministry reject my representation/application/president's reference? I had asked the Hon'ble president to make the payment to me as I had saved the then CJI, who is appointed by the President," he contended.

He also submitted before the division bench that his petition regarding the master of the roaster issue in the Supreme Court had helped establish and maintain the dignity of the post of the CJI.

For context, in his 2018 plea, Advocate Pandey had questioned the unilateral power of the CJI to constitute benches “arbitrarily” and allocate work to different benches. A three-judge bench dismissed his plea in April 2018.

Additionally, he submitted before the division bench that he had filed another petition against the four Supreme Court judges who held a press conference in January 2018, criticizing the then CJI.

Before the Court, he also referred to his letter and petition in the SC concerning the impeachment motion moved against CJI Misra, which he claimed was initiated under the direction of Antonia Maino and Kapil Sibal.

Notably, in April 2018, 71 Rajya Sabha members from seven political parties signed a notice seeking impeachment proceedings against Justice Misra. However, the then Vice-President of India and Rajya Sabha Chairman, Venkaiah Naidu, later rejected the notice, stating that it lacked substantial merit.

During his arguments, he stated that when he filed petitions for CJI Misra, people had asked how much CJI Misra gave him (for filing the petitions).

"CJI Misra ke liye petitions daali to logon ne pucha ki mujhe CJI Misra ne mujhe kitna diya? Bataiye kitni ghatiya mansikta hai logon ki. Maine CJI ke hit mein dayar ki thi yachika, CJI Misra se paise paane ki apeksha mein nahin," Advocate Pandey said.

He also submitted that he had also filed a petition against the move to allow Prince Charles to inaugurated the Commonwealth Games, which were held in 2011 in India.

He claimed that after the matter reached the Supreme Court, the judges asked the Attorney General to look into it, and the next day, the news came out that President Pratibha Devi Patil would be the one to inaugurate the event and not Prince Charles.

Case title - ASHOK PANDEY VS UNION OF BHARAT THRU. SECY. TO THE PRESIDENT NEW DELHI AND 2 OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 77

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 77

Click here to read/download order