It is time an audit was undertaken regarding the payment of fees to the law officers. While courts cannot inquire 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 G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has observed.
The judge 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.
Citing an instance, the judge noted that the Madurai Kamaraj University is in financial doldrums. 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.
Additional Advocate Generals appear even in small matters where their presence is not really required which even a novice of a government counsel could handle. All this for a few pennies. Marking appearance is a matter of money, the judge said.
In order to appease various constituencies, the ruling governments appoint needlessly high number of law officers. It is a matter of embarrassment that in the State of Tamil Nadu, there are close to dozen Additional Advocate Generals. When I entered the bar in 1991, we had only Advocate General. There was no Additional Advocate General at all, the judge said.
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. I hope that at least in Madurai Bench such practices will cease and the Additional Advocate Generals will turn a new leaf from 2026, the judge said.
I am not the only one to express my dismay at the state of affairs. The Allahabad High Court also said something similar and went one step further. It directed that the matter be placed before the UP Cabinet, the judge noted.
The court was hearing the petition filed by P. Thirumalai who was the standing counsel for Madurai Corporation for over 14 years from 1992 to 2006. He had represented the Corporation in the Madurai District Courts. His grievance is that the Corporation had not settled his fee bills.
According to the petitioner, the Corporation has to pay a sum of ₹14,07,807. But it paid only a sum of ₹1,02,037 and the balance amount of ₹13,05,770 remains to be paid.
“Pay the worker before his sweat dries” is an instruction attributed to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). 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 held.
The court permitted the petitioner to approach the Chairman / Secretary of the Madurai Legal Services Authority for verification of the cases the petitioner appeared for the Corporation. Thereupon, the petitioner shall submit his fee bills by enclosing the copies that will be issued by the Legal Services Authority. Madurai Corporation shall settle the fee bills without interest within a period of two months thereafter. Interest is denied since the petitioner has 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, the court said.
Published – December 19, 2025 10:15 pm IST
