Madras High Court Flags ‘Favoured Few’ Culture in Govt Legal Spending, Orders Settlement of Lawyer’s Dues

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench has questioned the practice of government and public bodies paying “scandalously high” fees to a handful of senior counsel, even as relatively small professional dues of panel lawyers are withheld for years on procedural grounds, while directing the Madurai City Municipal Corporation to take concrete steps to clear the long-pending fee claims of its former standing counsel.

The bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who served as standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. The petitioner alleged that despite representing the civic body in a large number of cases before the district courts at Madurai, his professional fees had not been fully settled even after nearly two decades.

The dispute dates back to 2006, when Thirumalai first approached the high court seeking payment of his pending bills. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to this direction, the Corporation passed an order in July 2008 and released a sum of about Rs. 1.02 lakh. According to the petitioner, however, his total claim was over Rs. 14 lakh, leaving an unpaid balance of Rs. 13.05 lakh, which prompted him to file the present writ petition in 2022 challenging the 2008 order.

Opposing the plea, the Corporation contended that the petitioner had failed to submit copies of judgments and decrees along with his fee bills, which was mandatory for verification and processing of claims. It further alleged that in several matters, particularly public auction cases, the non-submission of judgments within time had caused losses to the local body. The Corporation claimed that this lapse was also a reason for removing the petitioner from its panel of lawyers.

During the hearing, court examined a list produced by the petitioner containing 818 cases in which he claimed to have appeared on behalf of the Corporation. Justice Swaminathan questioned why certified copies had not been obtained and furnished in all these cases. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Thirumalai was in severe financial distress and could not afford the amounts demanded by clerks for obtaining certified copies in such a large number of matters.

Recording that he did not wish to doubt the statement of a counsel who claimed that he could not even engage a clerk due to lack of means, the judge proceeded on the premise that the petitioner’s financial hardship was genuine. Court observed that merely citing procedural defects should not result in a complete denial of legitimate professional dues, especially when the work itself was not in dispute.

To resolve the stalemate, court permitted the petitioner to approach the Chairman or Secretary of the Legal Services Authority attached to the Madurai district court with the list of cases in which he had appeared. Court directed the Legal Services Authority to verify the list and, upon confirming the petitioner’s appearances, arrange to obtain certified copies of the judgments and decrees. Court directed that this exercise be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

Upon receipt of the certified copies, the petitioner has been directed to resubmit his fee bills enclosing the documents issued by the Legal Services Authority. The Madurai Corporation has been ordered to settle the fee bills within two months thereafter. Court clarified that the payment would be made without interest.

Denying interest, Justice Swaminathan noted that the petitioner had mounted his challenge after a lapse of nearly 18 years. Court also observed that the Corporation could not be entirely blamed for non-payment when the original fee bills were not in order due to the absence of supporting documents.

Court further directed that the Legal Services Authority may raise an invoice for the costs incurred in obtaining certified copies, which shall be paid directly by the Corporation. The petitioner’s fee bills are to be settled after making due deductions towards this amount.

In a broader commentary on public spending on legal services, the judge contrasted the petitioner’s relatively modest claim with the large sums paid to certain senior law officers. Referring to an instance involving Madurai Kamaraj University, court noted that institutions citing financial incapacity to clear dues of retired staff had allegedly paid a senior counsel Rs. 4 lakh per appearance.

While acknowledging that courts cannot ordinarily enquire into or regulate the quantum of fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan emphasised that good governance requires public funds to be drawn on a measured basis and not distributed capriciously to a favoured few.

With these directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

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

Order Date: December 19, 2025

Bench; Justice GR Swaminathan