The Karnataka government finds itself facing a pointed and costly question: why does it spend significant public funds to maintain a full-fledged legal department, only to repeatedly outsource important cases to expensive private advocates? This growing practice has sparked a debate about fiscal prudence and trust in the state's own institutional machinery.
The Core of the Controversy
At the heart of the issue is a pattern where the state administration, instead of utilizing its salaried Advocate-General's office and state panel lawyers, frequently turns to high-profile external counsel to represent it in crucial legal battles. This happens despite the government employing a large and costly legal apparatus of its own. The fundamental contradiction is clear: the state is paying twice—once for its permanent legal setup and again for outsourced talent.
This trend was highlighted in an editorial dated 15 December 2025, which critically examined the rationale behind this dual expenditure. The editorial posed a direct challenge to the state's logic, asking why it maintains an expensive internal system if it lacks confidence in its capabilities for major cases.
Financial and Institutional Implications
The financial implications of this outsourcing are substantial. Engaging senior advocates from outside the state cadre often comes with hefty fees, which are borne by the public exchequer. This raises serious concerns about the optimization of resources and fiscal responsibility.
Beyond the money, the practice has significant institutional consequences. It undermines the morale and professional development of the state's own legal officers. If complex and high-stakes matters are always handed to outsiders, the government's legal department is deprived of the experience and expertise needed to grow stronger. This creates a vicious cycle where the internal machinery is perceived as inadequate, justifying further outsourcing.
A Question of Trust and Policy
The persistent reliance on external advocates ultimately points to a deeper issue: a potential crisis of trust in the state's own legal infrastructure. The editorial's central query—why maintain an expensive legal machinery that it does not trust?—remains unanswered. Is it a lack of confidence in the skill of state-appointed lawyers, or are there other procedural or political considerations at play?
This situation calls for a transparent review of the state's legal engagement policy. A balanced approach is needed—one where the internal department is strengthened and empowered to handle a wider array of cases, reserving external hiring for truly exceptional circumstances. Without such a recalibration, Karnataka risks perpetuating a system that is both financially wasteful and institutionally weakening.
The debate is no longer just about legal strategy; it is about governance, prudent use of taxpayer money, and faith in public institutions. The state government must provide a clear and convincing answer to its citizens.
