The Delhi High Court has ordered the Madhya Pradesh government to pay ₹78.65 lakh to Senior Advocate and former Advocate General Anoop George Chaudhari for his appearance before the Supreme Court. This amount, along with an interest of 9% per annum, is to be paid from the year 2021 until the final payment. The court’s decision was a response to a 55-page order dated August 31, which detailed the circumstances surrounding the payment dispute.
Court’s Decision and Interest Rate
Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the case, deprecated the conduct of the Madhya Pradesh government. He stated that delaying payment to advocates discourages talented lawyers from representing the state, which could potentially compromise the quality of representation. The 9% per annum interest rate was imposed to compensate Chaudhari for the delayed payment and to deter future instances of delayed payment by the state.
Dispute over Fees and Appearances
Chaudhari sought fees for his appearances in two high-profile cases, Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal and a connected MP Housing Board case. These appearances, totaling over 14 days between October and December 2019, resulted in 35 bills amounting to over ₹1.76 crore. The state, however, denied engaging Chaudhari’s services, claiming no record of his appearance existed.
The court, however, rejected the state’s argument. It noted that Chaudhari’s name was featured in the order sheets of the Supreme Court for 14 days, providing concrete evidence of his engagement. Furthermore, the former Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh, SR Mohanty, admitted at a court-directed meeting that Chaudhari was indeed engaged by the state after their first choice of senior counsel was unavailable.
Related: Viable mining for a Viksit Bharat
The court allowed a single appearance fee of ₹6,05,000 for each day of recorded appearance. It also deducted duplicated bills for the same day in the connected matter, ensuring that Chaudhari was not double-charged for his services. This decision was made after considering the complexities of the cases and the standard fees for senior advocates in the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, the court also expressed concern about the growing trend of senior advocates having to litigate to recover their fees. It noted that this trend reflects a diminishing respect for the office and status of senior advocates, which is a matter of institutional concern. The court emphasized that the dignity of the legal profession and effective representation of the state demand prompt payment of counsel’s fees.
Representing Chaudhari were Senior Advocates Manish Vashisht, Ashish Mohan, and June Chaudhri, along with advocates Vipul Tiwari, Sagrika Tanwar, and Akash Sharma. The State of Madhya Pradesh was represented by Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, along with advocates Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Rudra Aditya Khare, Kanishk Sharma, and Pranjal Singh.
Original Perspective: This case shows a pressing issue: states’ delays in paying advocate fees, which can deter top lawyers from representing them. Prompt payment is not just a matter of financial obligation but also maintains the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The court’s decision sends a strong message to states that such delaying tactics will not be tolerated and that they should respect the services of advocates.
