The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that when an independent advocate was appointed to a highly sensitive prosecution, he was performing a vital public duty. The court added that the State could not expect the advocate to pay for the fuel when he had to travel hundreds of kilometres for the case, as that would itself swallow his professional fee.

“When the State appoints an independent advocate to handle a highly sensitive prosecution, that advocate is performing a vital public duty. If an advocate has to travel hundreds of kilometers across districts for 117 hearings, expecting him to pay for the fuel and lodging out of a daily appearance fee is unfair. If the State does not cover basic travel costs, the professional fee itself is completely swallowed up by travel expenses,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the State against the order of a single judge asking it to pay the pending professional fee and travel expenses of Advocate B Mohan, who was appointed to serve as Special Public Prosecutor in the trial of Gokulraj murder case.

The State submitted that it had already cleared the basic appearance fee and objected to reimbursing the travel expenses. It was submitted that the rules did not explicitly permit travel allowance for private advocates who were appointed as public prosecutors.

The state argued that the private advocate was only entitled to daily legal fee and not travelling allowance. It was argued that there was no official, separate government order formally appointing the advocate as special prosecutor in the appeal stage also and thus, he could not claim expenses for those hearings, even if the judges themselves asked him to assist the court.

The court noted that the victim's mother had requested the court to appoint Mohan to lead the prosecution since the family placed immense trust on him. The trial spanned multiple districts, eventually moving to Special Court in Madurai, for which Mohan travelled from his hometown in Erode District to Namakkal and Madurai for 117 hearings.

The court also noted that during appeal, the High Court explicitly requested Mohan to assist the bench during the appeal stage due to his knowledge of the extensive trial records and ultimately, the conviction was upheld.

Later, when Mohan submitted a total bill of Rs. 12,10,000 which covered both his appearance fees and the actual costs of fuel and travel across district, the State refused to pay the travel portion.

The court noted that the State's argument that there was no formal appointment was overly technical. The court observed that when the High Court itself had specifically asked him to assist the bench to ensure that the prosecution case did not fall apart. The court remarked that calling Mohan's assistance as unauthorised after winning the case was unacceptable.

The court also added that the state spending more time, energy and public money in fighting the bill instead of paying it was poor use of public resources.

The bench noted that there was no error in the order passed by the single judge and the State should look at the spirit of public service, rather than raising technical objections. The court thus dismissed the appeal filed by the State and directed it to clear the pending fees.

Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali Government Pleader

Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Gayathri Vasudevan for Mr. R. Sankarasubbu

Case Title: The Secretary To Government and Others v B Mohan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

Case No: W.A.No.1747 of 2026