The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed concerns over the growing trend of advocates lending their names to file public interest litigation (PIL) without working on them. .A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia remarked,“It’s very sad. Lawyers are lending their names for filing PILs without actually working on it. I am very sorry, I may be excused if I am saying something wrong…It is very, very sad. The question is why did petitioner lend her name? It is a practice here that people are ready to lend their names just for filing PILs. Why should she file the PIL in her name?” .The Court was hearing a PIL filed by an advocate alleging that various applications on Google Play Store and Apple's App Store permit pornographic content, immoral trafficking, prostitution, substance abuse, illegal arms trade and organised crime.It was informed that the petitioner in the case, who is a practising advocate, had sent a legal notice to certain respondents on behalf of a client and then filed the PIL in her own name. The Court was also told that the advocate’s senior had represented one of the respondents earlier. .Advocate Tanmaya Mehta appeared for the petitioner and argued that the petition was filed after the petitioner came across the menace.“If in the course of representing a client, a lawyer comes across a public menace, can that not form the basis of a PIL? Does the lawyer have any personal interest in a lis where he represents a client? In my humble submission, the answer is no,” Mehta stated. He said that he has a solution to the dispute and that the contents of the PIL may be considered by the Central government as a representation. .Chief Justice Upadhyay said that what the petitioner did may not be illegal or amount to misconduct under the law, but “there is something called impropriety”. “Why did she file a PIL in her name when she or her senior represented one of the respondents?” the Court asked. Mehta said that if the Court feels it is improper, the PIL will be withdrawn and refiled, or the Court can ask the government to treat it as representation. The Bench said that it would be better if it was withdrawn. .Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for one of the intervenors in the case and stated that there are some lines which must never be crossed. He said that the petitioner may be questioned about who asked her to file the PIL. “There is a pattern. There are counsel who are in every order. There is a pattern of behaviour, which your lordship will see. And that's why your lordship is absolutely right. We must call out this behaviour,” Rao said. Ultimately, the Bench said that “things are not in good shape, and we have to be very, very conscious”. The Court then allowed the withdrawal of the PIL.
