Madras High Court Closes Plea Alleging Corruption In Appointment Of Govt Advocates, Says Politicians Impleaded 'Only To Make Headlines'

The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17), closed a plea filed by a lawyer and Joint Secretary of the District Advocates Wing (Villupuram District) of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party alleging corruption in the appointment of Government Advocates in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323]

Justice Mohammed Shaffiq closed the plea after Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the appointments presently made were temporary, for a period of 6 months, and that the state was processing the applications received by candidates to be appointed as Law Officers in the subordinate courts.

The AG also assured the court that the petitioner's application would be duly considered, if it was otherwise in order.

"Insofar as the prayer in the writ petition is concerned, the AG submits that a notification was called for the appointment of law officers on 5-6-26, and applications were received, and the same is being processed. It was submitted that appointments would be made soon, and the petitioner would also be considered if her application is otherwise in order. In such view of the matter, the petition is disposed of," the court said.

The court also noted that the party president, Joseph Vijay (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu), the party General Secretary, N Anand, and Villupuram District Secretary of the party, N Mohanraj, were not necessary parties in the case. The court said that there were no materials against these individual respondents, and they would have been included only to make headlines. The court thus urged the petitioner not to press for relief against the private respondents. The petitioner then gave an endorsement that he would not press the plea against them. 

The court was hearing a plea by Gnanasoundari seeking directions to the authorities to grant her an opportunity in the selection process and to ensure natural justice. In her plea, Gnanasoundari submitted that on June 22, 2026, at 1:00 pm, she had applied for the post of Special Public Prosecutor in the Mahila Court at Villupuram. Later, on June 29, 2026, at 4:00 pm, she applied for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Principal and Sub-Court, Villupuram. She submitted that though the District Collector had not given any acknowledgement for the applications, the CCTV footage of the Collector's office would show that she had gone to the office and had given an application.

While so, the petitioner submitted that on June 29, 2026, at 12:11 pm, a list of candidates who were appointed as Government Advocates was circulated on WhatsApp. The petitioner submitted that as per the notification calling for the post of Government Advocates, the cut-off date for application was 5:45 pm on June 29, 2026, but the final list of candidates was circulated even before that.

The petitioner submitted that the list contained names of advocates who were associated with political parties like DMK and ADMK. It was submitted that the lawyers were selected from a recommendation list and without following the procedure of law. The petitioner also submitted that she got to know from the Advocate community that the District Secretary had received around Rs 5 lakh to Rs 30 Lakh for each post and made the appointments illegally.

The petitioner submitted that while the president of the TVK party, CM Joseph Vijay, has said that he will not allow corruption and illegality in his Government, the fact is that illegality was being committed by the Law Department Secretary, the District Collector, and N Anandh, General Secretary of the TVK.

When the matter came up for hearing today, Advocate Ramesh Manikandan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner had applied for the post, a list was published even before the application time closed. He also submitted that Vijay, Anand, and Mohanraj were necessary parties as they had all taken part in the scam.

When the court asked if the list that was circulated online was the official final list, the petitioner side replied in the negative. To this, the court commented that one could not file a case just because a list was circulated online when no appointments had been made as per the list. 

"How can you say this then? This invariably happens in every appointment. How can you say that because x,y, or z circulated a list, the appointment was made? Was there any appointment made?" the court asked.

To this, Manikandan submitted that yesterday, a GO was issued appointing the persons as government law officers temporarily. He argued that no notification was issued for these temporary posts, and if any notification was made, the petitioner would have applied for the same. 

At this point, the AG informed the court that the tenure of government officers in the subordinate courts was coming to an end on June 30, and the government had called for applications for appointment on 29 June, and a lot of applications were received. The AG added that since the appointments could not be completed by the end of the tenure and since the courts could not be without government advocates, the present appointments were made temporarily for 6 months. The AG submitted that the state had started to evaluate the applications and the petitioner's application would also be evaluated.

The petitioner, however, objected to this and questioned the manner in which temporary appointments were made. He argued that temporary posts were also government posts and thus, the established procedure should have been followed even while making appointments in temporary basis. 

"My question is, what notification was issued for this temporary posting? On what basis were they appointed? They've even issued a notification for a court which does not exist - Addl District Court, Tindivanam. A temporary post is also a government post. Rules have to be followed for an appointment to a temporary post also. How can they select a candidate without following any procedure?" Manikandan questioned.

The court, however, remarked that appointments in temporary posts could not be gone into in the present case since it was outside the scope of relief sought in the present plea. The court also remarked that Vijay, Anand, and Mohanraj were not necessary parties in the case, and if the petitioner opined that they were involved in the scam, she could file a police complaint regarding the same. The court also added that even as per the petitioner, the State had appointed lawyers belonging to other political parties, which itself would show that there was no political bias in the appointment. 

"If they took part in the scam, you can go and file a police complaint. In the petition itself, you're saying advocates from DMK and AIADMK are appointed. That itself would show that there is transparency and no political bias. This is what the Supreme Court has been saying, that appointments should be on merit and not on political bias," the judge orally remarked.

When the petitioner side pointed out that some of the lawyers appointed temporarily were themselves accused in some cases and that the state had then revoked their appointments, the court said that merely because some persons in the system were not working as per their constitutional mandate, it could not be assumed that the entire system was flawed.

After hearing the parties and taking note of the AG's submissions, the court disposed of the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr Ramesh Manikandan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr Vijay Narayan, Advocate General

Case Title: M Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323

Case No: WP 28026 of 2026