The Madras High Court expressed concern over the “scandalously high” fees paid to some government law officers and senior advocates in Tamil Nadu. Justice G.R. Swaminathan stressed that public money must be used responsibly and called for better governance in legal appointments and payments.
The Madras High Court has raised serious concerns over the large amounts of public money being paid as legal fees to government law officers and senior advocates in Tamil Nadu and has called for an audit of such payments.
The observation was made by Justice G.R. Swaminathan while hearing a case related to the non-payment of legal fees to an advocate by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation in P Thirumalai v The Madurai City Municipal Corporation.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Examines Order Allowing Karthigai Deepam At Thirupparankundram Hill
Justice Swaminathan expressed shock over what he described as excessively high fees paid by government and quasi-government bodies to senior counsel and law officers.
He said,
“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.”
To explain the issue, the judge referred to Madurai Kamarajar University, which is currently facing financial difficulties. He noted that several writ petitions had been filed by retired staff seeking their pending dues. Despite pleading financial distress, the university reportedly paid very high fees to a senior advocate.
The Court said,
“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 judge made these observations while deciding a petition filed by an advocate who complained that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation had failed to clear his long-pending legal fees.
While stressing the importance of timely payment for professional services, Justice Swaminathan referred to Prophet Muhammad’s teachings.
He quoted,
“pay the worker before his sweat dries”,
and explained that this principle reflects fairness and justice.
The judge added,
“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 Court also criticised the growing practice of engaging Additional Advocates General (AAGs) even in routine and minor matters. It observed that such cases do not require senior law officers.
The judge remarked,
“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 further noted that this practice leads to unnecessary expenditure and delay. It stated, “All this for a few pennies. Marking appearance is a matter of money.”
Although the Court strongly criticised the situation, it stopped short of issuing a formal direction for an audit. Justice Swaminathan noted that the Supreme Court had recently refused to order an enquiry into allegations of excessive fees paid to the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh by the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council.
The Court clarified that while courts may not have the power to question the amount of fees paid to senior counsel or AAGs, public money must still be used responsibly.
It observed,
“While Courts cannot enquire into the quantum of fees paid to the senior counsel and Additional Advocate Generals, good governance requires that funds from public exchequer are drawn on a measured basis and not given away capriciously to a favoured few.”
Justice Swaminathan also referred to observations made earlier by a Division Bench of the High Court regarding the limited role of AAGs.
He noted,
“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.”
Speaking about the appointment of nearly a dozen AAGs in Tamil Nadu, the judge reflected on the past and said,
“When I entered the bar in 1991, we had only Advocate General. There was no Additional Advocate General at all.”
He explained that appointing too many AAGs leads to unnecessary allocation of work. The Court observed,
“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.”
The judge expressed hope that this practice would change, at least at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
He said,
“I 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.”
After these broader observations, the Court addressed the grievance of the petitioner advocate. Advocate P. Thirumalai had served as standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for over 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. He claimed that the Corporation owed him ₹14.07 lakh in legal fees but had paid only ₹1.02 lakh.
The Corporation argued that payment was withheld because the advocate had failed to submit certified copies of judgments. It also alleged that due to this failure, the Corporation suffered losses in several cases, especially public auction matters, which led to his removal from the panel.
The Court noted that the amount claimed by the petitioner was very small considering the number of cases he had handled and observed that payment had been withheld on procedural grounds.
When questioned about the difficulty in obtaining certified copies, the petitioner told the Court that a clerk demanded ₹750 per copy, which he could not afford. Accepting this statement for the purpose of the case, the Court issued specific directions.
The Court ordered,
“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 further directed that after receiving the certified copies, the petitioner should submit his fee bills. The Municipal Corporation was then instructed to clear the dues within two months.
However, the Court refused to grant interest on the delayed payment, noting that the petitioner had approached the Court after a delay of 18 years and that the Corporation could not be blamed entirely. The Court also added,
“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.”
Advocate B. Vijay Karthikeyan appeared for the petitioner, while Standing Counsel S. Vinayak represented the Madurai City Municipal Corporation.
Case Title:
P Thirumalai v The Madurai City Municipal Corporation
Read More Reports On Karthigai Deepam
