“Cannot Reduce Legal Professional To A Contract Worker": Madras High Court Criticises State For Fixing Ceiling For Govt Advocates' Fees
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the State of Tamil Nadu for its Orders determining a ceiling limit of fees payable to advocates appearing on behalf of the Government. The government had determined that for pending arbitration matters, civil suits, original petitions, original side appeals, civil miscellaneous appeals and for regular cases, the fee which shall be payable...
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the State of Tamil Nadu for its Orders determining a ceiling limit of fees payable to advocates appearing on behalf of the Government.
The government had determined that for pending arbitration matters, civil suits, original petitions, original side appeals, civil miscellaneous appeals and for regular cases, the fee which shall be payable would be 1 % of the award/decree subject to a ceiling of Rs. 10,00,000.
Calling such fee fixation arbitrary and irrational, Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government Orders gave an impression that legal professional was reduced to that of a contract worker. He added that the government should appreciate the work done by the Advocates in defending the policies of the Government in courts.
A reading of the G.O.Ms. No. 339 gives the impression that the Government has reduced a legal professional wedded to the nuances of law to a contract worker. That cannot be done and should not be done. The Government must come forward to appreciate the effective work done by a professional in upholding the letter and spirit of the policies of the Government.
The court also noted that the legal profession is a complicated one that requires much preparation and knowledge. The government could not set benchmarks for the skills and knowledge of an advocate.
The Government Order passed by the Bureaucrats cannot be a bench mark to estimate the skills and knowledge of an advocate who defends a Government order or advances the cause of the policies of the Government.
Finding the GOs to be an insult to the legal profession, the court added that the government has a duty to recognize the dignity of the legal profession.
The Government also has a duty to ensure that it recognizes the dignity of the legal profession. I am deeply distressed by the wordings in G.O.Ms. 339 and G.O.Ms. No.486. They have no connection to the efforts put by any Law Officer. I have no hesitation in holding that both the Government Orders are an insult to the legal profession
The court was hearing the plea of a Senior Advocate of the Madras High Court who was a former Additional Advocate General. He called upon the State to pay his professional fee of more than one crore rupees for his appearance in three arbitration cases. He informed the court that the GOs were passed during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. He added that a newly introduced policy could not have a retrospective application and that what had to be considered was the date of the transaction.
The Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, supported the GOs and submitted that it was applicable to the petitioner also. He added that the fee claimed by the petitioner was extremely exorbitant and that he could not seek additional privilege. It was also contended that a civil forum and not a writ court should determine the fee payable.
The court however allowed the petition and directed the government to consider all the fee bills raised by the Senior Lawyer within a period of 12 weeks. It observed,
"The value of an advocate representing the Government is immeasurable. It may be a small case, it may be a big case, still the Government has to be protected. Even if a common citizen comes seeking a legal heirship certificate and if the law officer is not able to justify either grant or denial of legal heirship certificate, it is ultimately the image of the legislature which is effected. That dignity and sanctity of the Government is in the hands of its law officers. These are facts which on the Executive or an Bureaucrat would never ever understand."
Case Title: V Ayyadurai v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 76