Madras High Court quashes GOs fixing ₹10 lakh ceiling for fees of law officers in arbitration, civil suits on plea by former AAG

Government cannot fix a ceiling or an upper limit for the fees to be paid to law officers thereby reducing the nuanced profession of law to the level of contract work, the Madras High Court recently said [V Ayyadurai v The State]. .In a judgement passed on March 3, Justice CV Karthikeyan quashed two government orders (GOs) that had imposed a fees structure for payment of fees of law officers in arbitration matters and in civil suits and had also set ₹10 lakh as the upper limit for fees to be paid to law officers."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," the Court said.Fixing a ceiling of ₹10 lakh for appearances in arbitration matters or in civil suits defies logic, the judge held.He, therefore, directed the Tamil Nadu (TN) government to examine the representations made by former Additional Advocate General and Senior Counsel V Ayyadurai regarding settlement of his pending fees and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks..Ayyadurai had filed three writ petitions before the High Court in 2020 and 2021 claiming that the TN government had not settled his bills in full for having represented the government in various arbitration proceedings involving high stakes. For such service in the arbitration proceedings, Ayyadurai had raised invoices worth over ₹3.94 crore. However, the State had cited two government orders (GO) passed in May 2018 and July 2019 that imposed a set structure for payment of fees of law officers in arbitration matters and in civil suits. The GOs also fixed ₹10 lakh as the upper limit for fees to be paid to lawyers. The State government told the High Court that the invoices raised by Ayyadurai were extremely exorbitant. It said that Ayyadurai had to abide by the terms of the two GOs and could not claim any additional privilege.Ayyadurai, however, argued that his fee was reasonable and in consonance with the Advocates Act..The High Court agreed with Ayyadurai. It said that the GOs defied logic and had failed to account for the efforts law officers put in to defend the government and its policies before courts of law. "It is unfortunate that it is projected by the learned Additional Advocate General as a just and equitable determination of the fees payable to a Law Officer who gives his sweat and blood to defend the Government, to project the policies of the Government and ensures that the policies are not struck down by courts of law," the High Court said. The Court went on to say that the legal profession unlike other professions and require nuance, wide knowledge and spontaneity, and the value of an advocate representing the government is immeasurable. Ultimately, the dignity of the government and the fate of its policies lie in the hands of the law officers representing the State before a court and imposing a ceiling on the remuneration to be paid to law officers for their efforts was an "insult to the legal profession." "Determining a ceiling of ₹10 lakh for appearances in arbitration matters or in civil suits defies logic. The GO is extremely irrational. It is not known why that amount was determined. It is not known on what basis that amount was fixed as being just and equitable. It is just another amount fixed by the Executive. It cannot be thrust on a professional," the Court underscored.The Court Court, therefore quashed the two GOs and directed the government to consider the bills raised by the petitioner. "The writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in the light of the professional assistance rendered by the petitioner," the Court held.The Court also said that the government is always at liberty to fix rules and guidelines but GOs determining a ceiling as fees for a professional cannot be accepted by any court of law.Senior Counsel V Ayyadurai, the petitioner, appeared as party in person.Additional Advocate-General J Ravindran and Special Government Pleader T Seenivasan appeared for the respondent government. .[Read Judgment]