Delhi High Court Directs MP Govt To Pay Over ₹78 Lakhs Fee To Senior Advocate, Says State Can't Deny Payment After Taking Legal Services
The Delhi High Court has directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay Rs. 78,65,000 along with interest of 9% per annum to senior advocate Anoop George Chaudhari for appearing before the Supreme Court in a matter, rejecting the State's claim that the senior counsel had effectively appeared only twice. Justice Sachin Datta referred to the order sheets of the Supreme Court in its constitution...
The Delhi High Court has directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay Rs. 78,65,000 along with interest of 9% per annum to senior advocate Anoop George Chaudhari for appearing before the Supreme Court in a matter, rejecting the State's claim that the senior counsel had effectively appeared only twice.
Justice Sachin Datta referred to the order sheets of the Supreme Court in its constitution bench matter Indore Development Authority v/s Manoharlal & Ors (2020) and noted the presence of the senior counsel. The bench said:
"Therefore, the appearances, as reflected in the record of proceedings leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.The significance of the aforesaid record can hardly be over emphasised. The recording of appearances in the Supreme Court is not an informal or casual exercise. Under Order IV Rule 1(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, no Advocate other than the Advocate on record for a party can appear, plead and address the Court in a matter unless he is instructed by the Advocate on Record or permitted by the Court"
The court observed that a Senior Advocate "cannot thrust his own appearance" upon a party in the Supreme Court; his appearance can be recorded only through and upon the instructions of the Advocate-on-Record of that party.
It found that the petitioner's appearance was recorded on "fourteen dates" in the block of the State's Standing Counsel and the State's Advocate-on-Record, and so the inference was that his appearance was given, on each such date, by the State's own authorized representatives.
The court further rejected the contention that the senior counsel "effectively" appeared on only two occasions, saying it was contrary to the record. Further, there is no warrant for the presumption that a Senior Advocate engaged in a part-heard final hearing before a Constitution Bench is remunerable only for the dates on which he made his submissions, the court said.
"The petitioner's appearance on each of the fourteen dates is recorded by the Supreme Court itself; on at least two of those dates (19.11.2019 and 11.12.2019), the orders record, in terms, that he made submissions and was heard. His entitlement to be remunerated, extends to each date of engagement in the matter, and is not confined to the dates of his own oral submissions," the court said.
The court also observed that in a meeting dated 01.11.2025, convened by the Advocate General, the then Chief Secretary admitted the engagement of the petitioner on behalf of the State in the IDA matter, and accepted that his bills for that matter may be processed and settled at prevailing rates. The State's written submissions dated 08.05.2026, filed thereafter, nonetheless asserted that the petitioner's "very engagement in the matter is disputed".
"The Law Department's letter dated 11.02.2026, extracted hereinabove, went so far as to assert that "there is no record of Senior Advocate Shri Anoop George Choudhary appearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court", and that another advocate "represented the State of Madhya Pradesh" in the SLP (C) No. 9036/2016. The assertion that there is "no record" of the petitioner's appearance is falsified by fourteen order sheets of the Supreme Court and by paragraph 8 of the reported judgment of the Constitution Bench. The State has simultaneously maintained that the petitioner was never engaged, and that he was engaged but appeared "effectively" on only two dates. The two pleas cannot coexist," the court emphasized.
The court further said that if the State contended that the petitioner's appearances were unauthorized, it was incumbent upon the State to have sought correction of the record of proceedings, or at the very least to have lodged a contemporaneous protest.
"Far from doing so, the State did not, at any point over more than six years, seek any review, modification or correction of the fourteen order sheets or of the reported judgment of the Constitution Bench which records the petitioner's submissions. The State cannot approbate and reprobate, i.e., it cannot retain the benefit of proceedings in which the petitioner represented it, while simultaneously disowning his very engagement," the court said.
It also rejected the contention that no formal appointment order or written instruction exists in the records of the Law Department of the State, and the letters dated 02.05.2024 and 11.02.2026 of the Law Department to that effect, cannot avail the State.
The court said that the State accepted and obtained the benefit of the petitioner's professional services and also permitted his appearance to be given, through its own Advocate-on-Record and alongside its own Standing Counsel, on "fourteen dates" before the Constitution Bench.
It further permitted him to address the Bench; it took the benefit of the judgment which records his submissions; and never sought correction of any of the fourteen order sheets or of the reported judgment, the court noted.
It said that the State's own Standing Counsel cum-Advocate-on-Record received the petitioner's bills and forwarded them for "remittance of fees as raised"; the State's own Chief Secretary has admitted the engagement of the petitioner and accepted that the bills be processed.
"Having so conducted itself, the State cannot now turn around and set up its own subsequent, mutually contradictory denials [each refuted by its own documents or by the Supreme Court's record] as "disputed questions of fact" warranting the relegation of the petitioner to a civil suit," the court said.
It also observed that fee of a counsel is at "once a matter of honour and a matter of legal right". It said that the existence of a legal remedy does not dilute the obligation of honour; it supplies the means by which, in the last resort, that obligation may be vindicated.
"As a general phenomenon, it is disconcerting to note the diminution in the office/status of senior advocates as is reflected by the proliferation of litigation, filed by senior advocates raising claim/s of unpaid fees...The spectacle of the counsel being driven to prosecute a writ petition for over six years, to recover fees for appearances rendered in a prominent matter before a Constitution Bench, duly recorded in the Supreme Court's own orders, while the departments of the State trade responsibility amongst themselves, is a matter of institutional concern. It demeans not the advocate, but the State," it added.
The court said that if States are permitted to "consume the services of the senior-most members of the Bar in their hour of need" and thereafter to consign their bills to a maze of departmental denials, the inevitable consequence would be that talented members of the Bar will be discouraged from appearing for the State at all.
The court thus directed Madhya Pradesh to pay to the petitioner within 6 weeks, Rs. 78,65,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the present petition, till the date of payment.
The plea was partly allowed.
Case title: ANOOP GEORGE CHAUDHARI v/s STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.(C) 13196/2021, CM APPL. 72314/2025, CM APPL. 23670/2026, CM APPL. 23681/2026