Delhi High Court Directs MP Govt to Clear Over ₹78 Lakh Legal Dues of Senior Advocate
Case Title: ANOOP GEORGE CHAUDHARI v/s STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13196/2021
Coram: Justice Sachin Datta
Court Observation
“Therefore, the appearances, as reflected in the record of proceedings leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.The significance of the aforesaid record can hardly be over emphasised. The recording of appearances in the Supreme Court is not an informal or casual exercise. Under Order IV Rule 1(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, no Advocate other than the Advocate on record for a party can appear, plead and address the Court in a matter unless he is instructed by the Advocate on Record or permitted by the Court”
“The petitioner’s appearance on each of the fourteen dates is recorded by the Supreme Court itself; on at least two of those dates (19.11.2019 and 11.12.2019), the orders record, in terms, that he made submissions and was heard. His entitlement to be remunerated, extends to each date of engagement in the matter, and is not confined to the dates of his own oral submissions,”
“The Law Department’s letter dated 11.02.2026, extracted hereinabove, went so far as to assert that “there is no record of Senior Advocate Shri Anoop George Choudhary appearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court”, and that another advocate “represented the State of Madhya Pradesh” in the SLP (C) No. 9036/2016. The assertion that there is “no record” of the petitioner’s appearance is falsified by fourteen order sheets of the Supreme Court and by paragraph 8 of the reported judgment of the Constitution Bench. The State has simultaneously maintained that the petitioner was never engaged, and that he was engaged but appeared “effectively” on only two dates. The two pleas cannot coexist,”
“Far from doing so, the State did not, at any point over more than six years, seek any review, modification or correction of the fourteen order sheets or of the reported judgment of the Constitution Bench which records the petitioner’s submissions. The State cannot approbate and reprobate, i.e., it cannot retain the benefit of proceedings in which the petitioner represented it, while simultaneously disowning his very engagement,”
“Having so conducted itself, the State cannot now turn around and set up its own subsequent, mutually contradictory denials [each refuted by its own documents or by the Supreme Court’s record] as “disputed questions of fact” warranting the relegation of the petitioner to a civil suit,”
“As a general phenomenon, it is disconcerting to note the diminution in the office/status of senior advocates as is reflected by the proliferation of litigation, filed by senior advocates raising claim/s of unpaid fees…The spectacle of the counsel being driven to prosecute a writ petition for over six years, to recover fees for appearances rendered in a prominent matter before a Constitution Bench, duly recorded in the Supreme Court’s own orders, while the departments of the State trade responsibility amongst themselves, is a matter of institutional concern. It demeans not the advocate, but the State,”
Delhi High Court Directs MP Govt to Clear Over ₹78 Lakh Legal Dues of Senior Advocate
