Madras HC Upholds Order Directing Tamil Nadu to Pay Travel Expenses of Special Public Prosecutor Who Attended 117 Hearings Across Districts

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari rejected the State's technical objections and directed payment of Rs. 12,10,000 in fees and travel expenses to advocate B. Mohan, who prosecuted a sensitive case spanning Namakkal and Madurai at the court's own request.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras has dismissed the Tamil Nadu government's appeal against an order directing it to pay pending professional fees and travel expenses to advocate B. Mohan, who served as Special Public Prosecutor in a sensitive case involving the death of a young boy. The Division Bench — comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan — found the State's reliance on technical rules to avoid paying travel costs untenable, given that Mohan had travelled from Bhavani in Erode District to Namakkal and Madurai for nearly 117 hearings. The Bench also rejected the State's objection that no formal government order covered his assistance during the appeal stage before the High Court itself, noting that the court had specifically requested his presence.

How the Appointment Came About

After the tragic death of a young boy, the victim's mother approached the Madras High Court and requested that B. Mohan — an advocate based in Bhavani, Erode District — be appointed as Special Public Prosecutor. The family placed their trust specifically in him. Acting on a direction from a learned Single Judge of this Court, the State formally appointed him.

The trial did not remain in one place. It spanned multiple districts before eventually moving to a Special Court in Madurai. Over the course of the proceedings, Mohan attended close to 117 hearings, travelling between Bhavani, Namakkal and Madurai each time. The convictions were secured.

When the convicted individuals appealed their sentences, the High Court specifically requested Mohan to assist the Bench during the appeal stage, given his familiarity with the extensive trial records. The convictions were ultimately upheld at that stage as well.

The Dispute Over the Bill

Mohan submitted a total bill of Rs. 12,10,000/-, covering both his appearance fees and the actual costs of fuel and travel across districts. The State cleared his basic appearance fees but refused to reimburse the travel component. Its position was that the applicable rules do not explicitly permit travel allowances for private advocates appointed as public prosecutors.

The State also raised a separate objection: there was no official government order formally appointing Mohan for the appeal stage before the High Court. On that basis, it argued that even if the judges themselves had asked him to be present, he could not claim expenses for those hearings.

A learned Single Judge, in Review Application No. 206 of 2025 arising from W.P. No. 17746 of 2025, rejected both arguments by order dated 29 October 2025. The Single Judge held that the State could not stand on rigid technicalities in such an exceptional case and directed payment of the pending fees and travel expenses. The State challenged that order in the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The State's Arguments Before the Division Bench

Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali, appearing as Government Pleader, submitted that a private advocate appointed as a public prosecutor is entitled only to a daily legal fee. He drew the court's attention to a separate order in a connected case where it was observed that the Advocates Act does not explicitly mandate payment of travel allowance to such advocates.

On the question of the High Court appeal stage, the Government Pleader contended that the absence of a formal, separate government order appointing Mohan for that phase meant he had no entitlement to expenses for those appearances, even if the Bench had asked him to attend.

Ms. Gayathri Vasudevan, appearing for the respondent, reiterated the reasons that had weighed with the Single Judge and sought dismissal of the appeal.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench opened its analysis by characterising what Mohan had actually done. When the State appoints an independent advocate to handle a highly sensitive prosecution, that advocate is performing a vital public duty. Expecting him to personally absorb the cost of travel across hundreds of kilometres for 117 hearings — out of a daily appearance fee — the Bench held, was simply unfair. If the State does not cover basic travel costs, the professional fee itself is completely swallowed up by travel expenses.

The Bench then addressed the argument about the absence of formal paperwork for the appeal stage. The court's response was direct: Mohan had not appeared uninvited. The High Court had specifically asked him to assist because his presence was necessary to ensure the prosecution's case did not fall apart. To characterise that assistance as “unauthorized” after the case has been successfully won, the Bench said, was unacceptable.

The Bench also made a pointed observation about the State's decision to contest the bill in further litigation. Spending more time, energy and public money fighting a Rs. 12,10,000/- bill in appeals, rather than simply paying it, was described as a poor use of public resources.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's view that this case was driven by its own exceptional facts and would not serve as a routine precedent for other general cases. That clarification was carried forward and expressly retained in the appellate order as well.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed W.A. No. 1747 of 2026 and upheld the Single Judge's order dated 29 October 2025. The State Government — represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department; the District Collectors of Namakkal and Madurai; the Director General of Police; and the Secretary to Government, Directorate of Adi Dravidar Welfare — was directed to clear pending fees and travel expenses due to B. Mohan, after deducting any amounts already paid, within four weeks from 13 July 2026. There was no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous application, CMP No. 16067 of 2026, was closed as a consequence.