The Madras High Court has issued a stern call for transparency and accountability in the payment of fees to government law officers, emphasizing that public funds must be utilized judiciously and not distributed arbitrarily. Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench made these significant observations on Friday while hearing a petition related to unsettled legal fees.
Court Slams "Scandalously High" Payments to Legal Counsel
Justice Swaminathan expressed deep concern over the disproportionate fees paid to certain legal officers by the government and quasi-government institutions. "I cannot help wondering at the scandalously high amounts paid to some of the law officers and the senior counsel by the govt and quasi govt institutions including local bodies," the judge remarked. He highlighted a specific case involving Madurai Kamaraj University to illustrate the issue.
The judge revealed that he had handled numerous writ petitions from the university's retired staff who were awaiting their dues. "I am told that a particular senior counsel was paid Rs 4 lakh per appearance by the university," Justice Swaminathan stated. He pointed out the contradiction where the university pleads financial inability to clear retired employees' dues but simultaneously pays exorbitant sums to its legal counsel.
Unnecessary Appearances and Proliferation of Law Officers
The court criticized the practice of Additional Advocate Generals (AAGs) appearing in trivial matters that could easily be handled by junior government counsel. "AAGs appear even in small matters where their presence is not really required which even a novice of a govt counsel could handle. All this for a few pennies. Marking appearance is a matter of money," the judge observed. He noted that a division bench of the court had recently indicated that an AAG's presence must be warranted by the nature of the case.
Justice Swaminathan linked this problem to the political practice of appointing an excessively high number of law officers to appease various constituencies. "It is a matter of embarrassment that in Tamil Nadu, there are close to a dozen AAGs," he said, contrasting it with the scenario in 1991 when he entered the bar and there was only an Advocate General with no AAGs at all. He argued that when too many are appointed, work must be found for each, leading to the unnecessary allotment of cases.
Court's Directive and Ruling on Specific Petition
The court was hearing a petition filed in 2022 by P Thirumalai, who had served as standing counsel for the Madurai Corporation for over 14 years from 1992. He claimed the corporation had not settled his fee bills totaling Rs 13,05,770. Invoking a universal principle, Justice Swaminathan quoted, "'Pay the worker before his sweat dries' is an instruction attributed to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). This principle can also be invoked in the case on hand."
The court issued specific directions to resolve this matter. It permitted the petitioner to approach the Chairman or Secretary of the Legal Services Authority (LSA) at the Madurai District Court and submit a list of cases he had appeared in. The LSA officials will verify the list, obtain certified copies, and issue them to the petitioner. Thirumalai can then submit his fee bills enclosed with these copies. The corporation has been directed to settle the bills.
However, the court denied the petitioner's claim for interest on the delayed payment. The judge cited two reasons: first, the petitioner mounted his legal challenge after a lapse of 18 years, and second, the corporation could not be solely blamed for non-payment as the initial submission of the fee bill was not in order.
Concluding his observations, Justice Swaminathan reiterated the urgent need for an audit regarding the payment of fees to all law officers and expressed hope that such practices would cease, at least within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
