Allahabad High Court Dismisses Lawyer's Plea Seeking ₹1 Crore As Legal Fees For 'Saving' Ex-CJI From 'Humiliation'

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today dismissed a lawyers's plea seeking a direction to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to pay him Rs. 1 crore as fees and expenses, claiming that he filed certain cases in the Supreme Court to save the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, from "humiliation, insult, torture, and removal."

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected his plea as well as his request to grant the Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court as per Article 134A of the Constitution of India. 

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. 

Read the following X thread to know more about his arguments : 

Adv Pandey : I sent a representation to seek fees and expenses to the Hon'ble president and the said representation was forwarded to the law ministry, which later rejected my prayer.

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) March 6, 2025

Having heard his arguments and submissions, the bench dictated the order dismissing his plea.

After his plea was dismissed, Advocate Pandey requested a certificate to appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that his petition involved a substantial question of law regarding the relationship between the President and Ministry officials. He questioned whether a reference sent by the President could be rejected by the Ministry, considering the constitutional status of the Hon'ble President. However, the Court rejected this request as well.

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