Back
State Must Reimburse Travel Expenses for Court-Appointed Special Prosecutors: Madras HC
In a significant ruling, the has dismissed an by the , reinforcing the principle that legal professionals performing a "" should not be financially penalized by administrative technicalities. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, affirms that the State is obligated to reimburse travel expenses to (SPPs) appointed for sensitive cases.
A "" vs. Rigid Bureaucracy
The dispute centered on the reimbursement of travel expenses totaling Rs. 12,10,000 claimed by advocate . Mr. Mohan was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to lead the sensitive of the following a specific request from the victim’s family, who placed deep trust in his expertise. While the State had cleared the advocate’s basic appearance fees, it refused to reimburse his travel and fuel costs, citing the absence of explicit rules or formal (GOs) covering travel allowances for private advocates acting as public prosecutors.
The Travails of a Special Prosecutor
For the advocate, the commitment was extensive. The case spanned multiple districts, requiring Mr. Mohan to commute from his hometown in Bhavani, Erode District, to trial courts in Namakkal and eventually a in Madurai across 117 hearings. Furthermore, when the matter reached the for the stage, the Bench itself requested his assistance to navigate the complex trial records. The State’s refusal to pay was met with consternation by the Court, which termed the argument that there was "no official appointment" for the stage as "overly technical."
Court’s Scrutiny of State’s Technical Defense
The Bench was firm in its condemnation of the State’s stance. The Court noted that forcing an advocate to bear the costs of extensive travel out of their professional fees essentially renders the moot.
"When the State appoints an independent advocate to handle a highly sensitive , that advocate is performing a . If the State does not cover basic travel costs, the professional fee itself is completely swallowed up by travel expenses,"the Court observed in its judgment.
Regarding the State's argument that the advocate's presence during the was "unauthorized," the Court was categorical:
"The respondent did not argue the appeals uninvited. The specifically asked him to assist because his presence was necessary... To call his vital assistance 'unauthorized' after the case has been successfully won is unacceptable."
The Path Forward for Public Service
The Division Bench highlighted that the State's decision to contest the payment—expending more public money on
than the actual cost of the claim—represented a
"poor use of public resources."
The order serves as a corrective measure, reminding the administration that the spirit of public service should take precedence over rigid, bureaucratic objections.
The has directed the appellants to settle the pending travel expenses and outstanding fees within four weeks. While clarifying that this ruling is driven by the unique circumstances of this case, the decision sends a clear message to government departments: when the Court identifies a need for specialized legal assistance in the interest of justice, the infrastructure to support that assistance must be provided without hesitation.
