Public Funds Can't Be Given To 'Favoured Few': Madras High Court Suggests Audit Of 'Scandalously High' Fees Paid To Govt Law Officers

Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation on noting that Additional Advocate Generals were appearing even in small matters where their presence was not required. The court added that while it could not enquire into the quantum of fee to be paid to senior counsels and additional advocate generals, good governance was required to ensure that public money was not given away to a favoured few.

“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. It is time an audit is undertaken regarding the payment of fees to the law officers,” the court observed.

“While Courts cannot enquire 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,” the court added.

The court made the remarks while hearing a petition by Thirumalai seeking settlement of his claim from the Madurai City Municipal Corporation. Thirumalai said that he was the standing counsel for Madurai City Municipal Corporation for 14 years from 1992 to 2006, representing the corporation in the Madurai District courts.

Thirumalai submitted that the corporation had not settled his fee bills. He had thus approached the court seeking payment and the court had disposed of the plea, in 2006, directing the corporation to pass appropriate orders. Thirumalai's present plea was against the order of the Corporation paying him a sum of Rs. 1,02,037. He argued that the corporation had to pay him Rs. 14,07,807 and sought that the balance amount of Rs. 13,05,770 be paid.

The corporation, through its counter, submitted that it was ready to honour the claim provided that the claim bill was in order. The corporation submitted that the copies of the judgment and decrees must be enclosed along with the claim bill. The corporation also argued that due to the non-submission of judgments within time, the corporation had faced heavy losses, particularly in public auction cases.

On enquiring what difficulty the petitioner had in obtaining the certified copies, the court was told that the petitioner was in penurious circumstances and could not pay the clerk for obtaining the certified copies.

The court then directed the petitioner to approach the Chairman or Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, Madurai District Court and hand over the list of cases in which he has appeared. The court directed the Chairman/Secretary to verify the list and obtain the certified copies of the judgments and issue the same to the petitioner. The court directed that this exercise should be completed within 2 months.

After getting the certified copies, the court directed the petitioner to submit the fee bills along with the copies to the corporation and the corporation was to settle the bills, without interest within a period of 2 months. The court added that the interest was being denied to the petitioner as he had challenged the issue after a lapse of 18 years. The court remarked that the corporation could not be blamed for the non-payment when the submission of the fee bill was not in order.

Noting that the petitioner's claim was pittance when compared to his appearances, the court wondered how the government and the quasi-government institutions were paying scandalously high amount to some law officers and senior counsels. This prompted the court to remark that an audit should be conducted.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B. Vijay Karthikeyan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. Vinayak, Standing Counsel

Case Title: P Thirumalai v. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 493

Case No: W.P(MD)No.26707 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment