Ministry of Law and Justice Revises Fees for Central Government Counsel Effective February 2026

In a move long anticipated by the legal fraternity, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice has issued an Office Memorandum revising the fee structure for various categories of Central Government Counsel, effective from February 1, 2026. This revision, detailed in the memorandum dated February 5, 2026, applies to panel lawyers representing the government across the Supreme Court, High Courts, Tribunals, District Courts, and arbitration proceedings. The changes come on the heels of announcements by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal at the 17th National Conference of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad in Balotra, Rajasthan, where he pledged increases in fees, resolution of payment delays, and the introduction of an insurance scheme for advocates. This policy update not only enhances remuneration but also underscores the government's commitment to supporting the legal profession in fulfilling its role in justice administration.

Policy Background

The revision addresses persistent challenges faced by panel counsels, who often handle a high volume of government litigation at rates that have remained largely stagnant for years, failing to keep pace with inflation and rising professional costs. Prior to this update, fees were governed by Office Memoranda from 1999 and 2011, such as OM No. 21(04)/1999-Judl. dated September 24, 1999, and OM No. 21(05)/2011-Judl. dated October 1, 2011, for Supreme Court panels, with similar frameworks for other jurisdictions. These older structures led to grievances over inadequate compensation, particularly for junior and mid-level counsels, and delays in disbursements from ministries and public sector undertakings.

The catalyst for this revision was highlighted during the recent conference in Rajasthan. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, addressing a gathering of lawyers, acknowledged the frustrations: "Your fees will be increased. Timely payment is not being made. We are resolving that issue also." He cited examples like unpaid bills from entities such as Coal India, prompting laughter and agreement from the audience. The minister emphasized that the government was actively tackling these issues, stating, "There are many who say, we fought the case, but this Coal India (as an example) is not making payment. Isn't this an issue?" This backdrop of advocacy from bar associations and the need for efficient legal representation in government matters paved the way for the new memorandum.

Furthermore, the policy ties into broader welfare initiatives. Concurrently, the minister announced an upcoming insurance scheme for advocates, encompassing medical insurance, group insurance, and accident coverage. "We are bringing an insurance scheme for you. Both medical insurance and group insurance. Accident will also be covered," he assured. This scheme, along with the pending Advocates' Protection Act before the Law Commission, signals a holistic approach to bolstering the profession's security and sustainability.

The Office Memorandum, issued from Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, by the Department of Legal Affairs, explicitly states the transitional provision: "The counsels will be paid fee at the old rates in respect of their appearance in the Court etc. and other work done by them prior to 01.02.2026 and at the revised rates in respect of the work done by them on/ after 01.02.2026." Approved by the Ministry of Finance, this ensures a smooth implementation without retrospective claims.

Details of the Revised Fee Structure

The memorandum outlines a comprehensive fee framework across five tables (A to E), categorizing counsels by seniority and jurisdiction. This structured approach standardizes payments, clarifying entitlements for hearings, drafting, conferences, and ancillary expenses.

In the Supreme Court (Table A), Group 'A' panel counsels, typically senior advocates, will receive Rs. 21,600 per day for final hearings in regular appeals and defended writ petitions—a notable hike from previous rates. Group 'B' and 'C' counsels get Rs. 14,400 for the same. For admission matters like SLPs and transfer petitions, fees are Rs. 14,000 for Group 'A' and Rs. 7,200 for others. Additional provisions include Rs. 8,400 for settling pleadings (Group 'A' only), Rs. 4,800 for drafting by Group 'B' and 'C', and Rs. 21,600 daily for out-of-headquarters services. Notably, only one drafting fee applies in identical or connected cases, promoting efficiency.

For High Courts and Tribunals excluding principal benches in Bombay and Calcutta (Table B), monthly retainership for Deputy Solicitors General (Dy. SG), Senior Central Government Standing Counsel (Sr. CGSC), and similar roles rises to Rs. 14,400. Effective hearing fees are Rs. 14,400 per day for these senior roles and Rs. 3,600 for Central Government Counsel (CGC) and Government Pleaders (GP), with non-effective hearings capped at Rs. 2,400 and Rs. 720 respectively (maximum five per case). Drafting fees include Rs. 2,160 per pleading for junior roles, and conferences at Rs. 1,440 or Rs. 720. Clerkage is limited to 10% of total fees, with a maximum of Rs. 2,880. In connected cases, reduced fees apply based on contestation levels, ranging from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 300.

Principal benches of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, along with CAT and other tribunal benches (Table C), feature tiered rates for special counsel (Rs. 14,400 for suits/writs/appeals), Senior Counsel Group I (Rs. 9,600), Group II (Rs. 6,000), and Junior Advocates on Record (Rs. 2,880). Interim motions and arbitration matters fetch Rs. 4,800 for special and Group I seniors, down to Rs. 2,160 for juniors. Drafting is Rs. 4,800 to Rs. 1,680 per pleading, with consultations at Rs. 1,440 to Rs. 720. No ceiling on conferences for special counsel, but limited to four (extendable to six) for others.

At the district and subordinate courts level (Table D), standing government counsel receive a monthly retainership of Rs. 9,600 (except Delhi), with Rs. 2,880 for effective hearings and Rs. 960 for non-effective ones. Drafting written statements or appeals costs Rs. 2,400, conferences Rs. 1,440 (max five), and out-of-headquarters daily fee Rs. 3,600. Clerkage is 10% up to Rs. 8,400.

For arbitration panels (Table E), senior counsel earn Rs. 3,600 per effective hearing and Rs. 2,400 for drafting, while juniors get Rs. 2,400 and Rs. 1,200 respectively. Conferences are Rs. 720 or Rs. 480, with new clerkage at 10% (max Rs. 2,880).

Travel and hotel expenses for out-of-headquarters work are reimbursed per 7th CPC levels—Level 12 for seniors and Level 11 for juniors—ensuring parity with government employee entitlements. Out-of-pocket expenses are reimbursable subject to departmental approval. All other pre-existing conditions from prior OMs remain applicable unless revoked.

Minister's Announcements and Broader Reforms

The fee revision is part of a larger reform agenda outlined by Minister Meghwal. Beyond the hike, the focus on timely payments aims to streamline bill processing through nodal officers in ministries. The insurance scheme, expected soon, will provide medical, group, and accident coverage, addressing vulnerabilities like professional liabilities and health risks inherent in legal practice. The minister noted, "Advocates' Protection Act is pending before the Law Commission. The rest of the issues will also be resolved," indicating ongoing consultations.

These measures respond to bar associations' representations, enhancing the attractiveness of panel roles amid competition from private practice. By resolving payment bottlenecks, the government seeks to ensure consistent legal support in thousands of pending cases involving public interest.

Analysis of Implications

From an administrative law perspective, this revision exercises executive authority under the government's inherent power to regulate its legal representation, aligned with principles of fiscal prudence and equity. The approval from the Ministry of Finance (ID Note No. 9/8/2025-E.II(B) dated January 12, 2026) underscores budgetary integration. Unlike judicial fee regulations under state bar councils, this governs central panel counsels, potentially setting a benchmark for states.

The hikes—such as doubling effective hearing fees in some High Court categories—reflect economic realities post-7th CPC implementation in 2016, compensating for inflation. For instance, a senior counsel handling a multi-day writ petition could now earn up to Rs. 14,400 daily plus conferences, significantly improving viability. However, caps on non-effective hearings and connected case fees prevent over-escalation.

Legally, this bolsters Article 39(a)'s directive for adequate livelihood means, indirectly supporting access to justice by retaining skilled lawyers for government defenses in constitutional, criminal, and civil matters. It may reduce instances of counsel withdrawals due to unpaid fees, streamlining court proceedings.

Key Observations

The memorandum emphasizes continuity and fairness: "All other terms and conditions applicable to Group 'A', 'B' and 'C' Panel Counsel in Supreme Court in the pre-revised OM... shall continue to remain applicable unless specifically revoked/revised." This preserves procedural stability.

On reimbursements: "Where a Counsel is required to perform journey outside the headquarter... he shall be paid or reimbursed travelling and on boarding and lodging as per the level – 12 of 7th CPC."

Minister Meghwal's assurance highlights empathy: "We are resolving that issue also," referring to payment delays, positioning the revision as a responsive policy.

In connected cases, the OM clarifies: "If substantially identical SLP/Petitions... only one drafting fee will be payable," promoting cost-efficiency.

These observations underscore a balanced approach—rewarding expertise while controlling expenditures.

Impact on Legal Practice

The revised structure will profoundly affect legal practice by making government panel roles more remunerative, potentially drawing top talent and reducing turnover. Junior counsels, often overburdened, benefit from higher drafting and hearing fees, enabling better work-life balance. For government departments, this ensures robust defense in high-stakes litigation, from SLPs in the Supreme Court to land acquisition in districts.

Timely payments, once enforced, could cut administrative delays, allowing counsels to focus on advocacy rather than chasing dues. The insurance scheme adds a welfare layer, mitigating risks like courtroom accidents or health issues from long hours.

Broader ripple effects include influencing private fee negotiations and encouraging states to revise their counsel tariffs. For the justice system, it fortifies public interest litigation handling, ensuring the government's voice is competently represented. As panel counsels form the backbone of institutional litigation, this policy could enhance overall judicial efficiency.

In conclusion, the 2026 fee revision marks a progressive step in valuing legal services, complemented by welfare measures. While implementation will be key—through vigilant nodal oversight—it promises a more empowered cadre of government lawyers, ultimately benefiting the rule of law.