The Madras High Court recently called for an audit into the payment of fees to law officers in Tamil Nadu [P Thirumalai v The Madurai City Municipal Corporation].

Justice GR Swaminathan flagged the “high amounts” paid to the government lawyers and called it a matter of embarrassment that there are close to dozen Additional Advocates General (AAGs) in the State.

“I cannot help wondering at the scandalously high amounts paid to some of the law officers and the senior counsel by the government and quasi government institutions including local bodies. Let me cite an instance. The Madurai Kamarajar University is in financial doldrums. I myself dealt with at least a dozen writ petitions filed by the retired staff. I am told that a particular senior counsel was paid Rs.4,00,000/- per appearance by the university. The university which is pleading that its financial situation is such that it is unable to pay the dues of its retired staff has no difficulty in paying exorbitant fees to its counsel,” the Court said.

He was dealing with a plea by an advocate alleging non-payment of his legal fees by Madurai City Municipal Corporation.

Interestingly, Justice Swaminathan in the verdict quoted Prophet Muhammad’s instruction - “pay the worker before his sweat dries” - to emphasise the importance of timely payment for the services rendered by a professional.

“This principle is only a facet of fairness and is eminently applicable in labour jurisprudence. It can also be invoked in the case on hand,” the judge said.

The judge then flagged the engagement of AAGs even in small matters.

AAGs appear even in small matters where their presence is not really required which even a novice of a government counsel could handle, the Court said.

“All this for a few pennies. Marking appearance is a matter of money,” the order stated.

While calling for an audit into payments made to government law officers, the Court stopped short of issuing a formal direction.

It noted that the Supreme Court had recently declined to order an enquiry into the payment of exorbitant fees to the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh by the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council.

The bench said that while Courts cannot enquire into the quantum of fees paid to the senior counsel and AAGs, good governance requires that funds from public exchequer are drawn on a measured basis and not given away capriciously to a favoured few.

“I am also informed that recently the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by His Lordship Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam indicated that the Additional Advocate General cannot appear in every matter. Their presence should be required. The nature of the case must warrant their appearance. In order to appease various constituencies, the ruling governments appoint needlessly high number of law officers,” the Court noted.

On appointment of about a dozen AAGs in the State, the Court said,

“When I entered the bar in 1991, we had only Advocate General. There was no Additional Advocate General at all. When too many are appointed, necessarily each of them will have to be given work. That leads to allotment of matters that do not even require their services. When the cases are called, the government counsel seeks adjournment or pass-over on the ground that the Additional Advocate General has been engaged but is elsewhere.”

It expressed a hope that at least in Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court "such practices" will cease and the Additional Advocate Generals will "turn a new leaf from 2026." 

The Court then dealt with the present petition by the lawyer-petitioner seeking payment of legal fees of over ₹13 lakh by Madurai City Municipal Corporation.

Advocate P Thirumalai was a standing counsel for the municipal body for over 14 years from 1992 to 2006.

He alleged that the corporation owed him ₹14.07 Lakh but paid only a sum of ₹1.02 Lakh. In response, the municipal body said it was unable to pay the petitioner on account of non-submission of the copies of the judgments.

It was also alleged that due to such non-submission, the corporation  in quite a few cases, particularly public auction cases, faced heavy loss, leading to his removal from the panel of lawyers.

The Court observed that petitioner’s claim was a pittance when compared to the number of his appearances. Citing procedural aspects, the payment has been withheld, it said.

The Court also highlighted the disparity between this case and the payments made to other government lawyers. 

When the Court asked about the difficulty in obtaining certified copies of judgments, the petitioner said that a clerk demanded a sum of ₹750 for each copy but he was not in a position to afford the amount.

Proceeding on an assumption that the statement was factually correct, the Court asked the petitioner to approach the Chairman or Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, Madurai District Court and hand over the list of cases in which he had appeared.

“The Chairman / Secretary to the Legal Services Authority is directed to verify the list given by the petitioner. Upon verifying that the writ petitioner had appeared in those cases, the Legal Services Authority shall arrange to obtain the certified copies and issue the same to the writ petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the Court ordered.

The petitioner will then submit his fee bills by enclosing the copies that will be issued by the Legal Services Authority, the Court further directed.

Thereafter, the Madurai City Municipal Corporation shall clear the lawyer's legal fees within two months, the Court ordered.

However, the Court said that no interest would be paid to the petitioner since he mounted his challenge after a lapse of 18 years. The Corporation cannot be blamed for non-payment when the submission of the fee bill was not in order, it reasoned.

“The Legal Service Authority may raise an invoice towards the cost incurred for issuing certified copies. The said invoice shall also be enclosed along with the fee bills. The Madurai Corporation shall pay the invoice amount directly to the Legal Services Authority. The fee bills of the writ petitioner shall also be settled after duly deducting the same,” the Court added.

Advocate B Vijay Karthikeyan represented the petitioner.

Standing Counsel S Vinayak appeared for the respondent.

[Read Judgment]