Irregularities in the double bench of the High Court in Madhya Pradesh have surfaced. The court severely reprimanded the advocate responsible for these mistakes. Justice Arya also issued strong remarks during this time.

Ashok Jain, an advocate, was found to have filed affidavits of non-existent individuals in bail petitions. He is accused of improperly seeking a change of counsel and submitting false affidavits in bail petitions.

Government advocate Ajay Nirankari exposed this irregularity in front of Justice Arya. The Justice denounced the advocate's actions as shameful, likening him to the notorious fraudster Natwarlal.

Justice Arya expressed disbelief and questioned his lack of shame despite being a lawyer. He remarked that such greed for money had blinded the advocate, deeming his behavior a disgrace to the legal profession.

The High Court has mandated that the advocate personally verify each affidavit. Additionally, if any of these affidavits are submitted in a criminal appeal, the advocate is required to visit the relevant police station to verify the identity of the individual mentioned in the affidavit.

Indeed, in one instance, an affidavit was submitted in support of a bail application, indicating the address of the affiant as Jalaun, Madhya Pradesh, despite Jalaun not being located in MP. Furthermore, in a separate case concerning the bail of a Muslim individual, an affidavit was erroneously filed, declaring a Hindu as his relative.

Another significant error was uncovered in a criminal bail petition, wherein the affidavit from another accused's petition was mistakenly substituted and filed alongside this petition, prompting an investigation into the matter.

During the hearing, other advocates in the court accused Advocate Jain of visiting the jail daily to meet prisoners and persuading them to sign power of attorney documents. Subsequently, he would appear in the High Court the following day and file applications for a change of counsel without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the incumbent lawyer. This unethical practice was alleged to have been carried out with a recently paroled criminal as well.