The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling, invoking a timeless teaching of Prophet Muhammad to ensure justice for a lawyer who has been waiting nearly two decades for his legal fees. The court directed the Madurai City Municipal Corporation to settle outstanding dues amounting to Rs 13.05 lakh owed to its former standing counsel.
Court Cites Prophetic Principle on Timely Wages
Justice G R Swaminathan, presiding over the case, referenced the prophetic principle that a worker must be paid "before his sweat dries." The judge emphasized that this principle is a fundamental aspect of fairness and is fully applicable within labour and service jurisprudence. The court was hearing a petition filed by former counsel P Thirumalai, who served the corporation from 1992 to 2006.
Thirumalai had represented the civic body in approximately 818 cases in the Madurai District Courts over his 14-year tenure. Despite this extensive service, his fee bills remained largely unsettled. An earlier high court direction for the corporation to consider his representation had resulted in a rejection of a substantial part of his claim, leading to the present legal challenge.
Court's Directives for Resolution and Broader Concerns
The High Court has laid down a clear path for resolution. It allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of the cases he handled. Recognizing the petitioner's inability to afford a clerk to obtain certified copies of all 818 judgments, the court directed the DLSA to procure these records within two months.
The corporation has been ordered to reimburse the DLSA for this expense and subsequently settle the lawyer's fee bills within the same two-month period. However, noting an 18-year delay in challenging the non-payment, the court ruled that the settlement would be made without interest. It also observed that the corporation could not be solely faulted as the initial submission of the fee bill was not in proper order.
Justice Flags Proliferation of Law Officers and High Fees
Beyond the immediate case, Justice Swaminathan used the platform to express serious concerns about state legal practices. He described it as a "matter of embarrassment" that Tamil Nadu has close to a dozen Additional Advocate Generals (AAGs). The judge argued that appointing too many law officers leads to work being artificially created to justify their positions, sometimes for cases that do not require such high-level representation.
He pointed out a common courtroom disruption where government counsel seek adjournments citing that an AAG is engaged but appearing elsewhere. "I hope that at least in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court such practices will cease and the Additional Advocate Generals will turn a new leaf from 2026," Justice Swaminathan remarked.
The judge also commented on the quantum of fees, stating that while the court cannot officially inquire into amounts paid to senior counsel, "good governance" demands prudent use of public funds. He contrasted Thirumalai's total claim, calling it a "pittance" compared to his appearances, with the "scandalously high amounts" paid to some law officers by the government and local bodies.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing ethical principles in contractual and service relationships, applying ancient wisdom to modern administrative failures, and calling for greater accountability in the use of public money to hire legal counsel.
