Legal Profession Not Commerical Activity, Lawyers Cannot Pressurise Court To Pass Favourable Orders To Recover Fees From Client: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has condemned a lawyer for making inappropriate comments and allegedly pressurising the court to pass favourable orders in order to recover legal fees from his clients.

A single bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held:

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. Accordingly, the aforesaid conduct of counsel for petitioner in making unparliamentary comments is hereby condemned.

The case involved an architectural firm challenging its exclusion from the list of firms selected for the renovation of colleges in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner claimed that despite being the most eligible firm, they were not allotted any colleges. They contended that the selected architectural firms did not meet the eligibility criteria but failed to provide specific evidence or pleadings to substantiate this claim.

The High Court dismissed the petition due to the non-joinder of necessary parties and clarified the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters. The Court noted that the petition lacked detailed pleadings and only included a statement asserting that the selected architectural firms were unqualified. Additionally, the State informed the Court that the firms awarded the consultancy contracts had not been made parties to the case. During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner also refused to include the successful architectural firms as parties to the petition.

Advocates cannot pressurise Court for favourable order

Despite the Court offering an adjournment to allow for proper drafting of the petition, the petitioner's counsel insisted on an immediate hearing and asked the Court to restrain the respondent authorities from issuing allotment orders to the selected firms. The Court found that the petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate how the selected firms were ineligible and lacked any relevant pleadings to support this claim.

The Court criticized the petitioner's lawyer's attempt to pressure the Court into a favourable ruling to secure his fees from his client.

Justice Ahluwalia emphasized that the legal profession is not a business or commercial activity and that advocates should present their clients' cases using their professional skills without trying to commercialize their profession. 

The Court further highlighted the necessity of including the selected firms as parties to the case to adjudicate the petitioner's claims properly. The bench emphasized that for any effective order to be passed, all parties likely to be affected must be included in the petition.

In response to the lawyer's refusal to address the non-joinder of necessary parties the Court expressed its disapproval of the petitioner's counsel's arrogant attitude. Justice Ahluwalia stated, "This Court could not understand the arrogant attitude of counsel for petitioner specifically when the objection raised by the State counsel was a legal objection which was also otherwise relevant under the facts and circumstances of the case."

The Court then discussed the scope of judicial review in contractual matters. The petitioner's counsel argued that the matter was one of selection, not a contract. However, the Court rejected this contention, stating that the awarded projects involved consultancy fees and were essentially commercial contracts. The Court reiterated that its power of judicial review in such matters is limited and should be exercised with restraint. Additionally, the Court reiterated its position that it cannot substitute its opinion for that of experts in technical matters unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or illegality is presented.

The petition was thus dismissed, with the Court concluding that no case was made out warranting interference.

Case title: Kushi & Associates Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Citation: W.P. No.22392/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order