The Andhra Pradesh High Court is hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by a retired railway employee challenging the payment of Rs 15.80 crore in professional fees to senior Supreme Court advocate Siddharth Luthra by the Chandrababu Naidu government in connection with various cases.
The petitioner, Vemu Kondala Rao, filed the PIL seeking cancellation of the government orders under which Luthra was paid for appearing on behalf of the state government, the SIT and the CID in different cases.
According to the petition, the government paid Luthra Rs 15.80 crore between June 2024 and June 2026. The petitioner argued that the payments exceeded the limits prescribed under the applicable government orders and advocate fee rules.
He sought directions for recovery of the alleged excess amount. He also questioned why the government engaged a private lawyer when it already has a battery of public prosecutors, the Advocate General and Assistant Advocates General.
The petitioner relied on a government order issued in 2022 which, according to his case, prescribed a maximum fee of Rs 3 lakh per case. He alleged that the state government had made payments far beyond that ceiling.
During the hearing, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan questioned why the PIL had specifically targeted payments made to Luthra when governments had been engaging senior counsel and paying professional fees for several years.
The bench also asked why the petitioner had focused only on Luthra and had not raised similar questions about payments made to other senior lawyers.
The court observed that several courts, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court, had already dealt with issues relating to the payment of professional fees to advocates and had delivered judgments on the subject.
It directed both sides to place the relevant judicial precedents before the court and adjourned the matter.
Appearing for Kondala Rao, advocate Jada Sravan Kumar argued that the government had violated the Andhra Pradesh Advocate Fees Rules while making payments to Luthra and sought notices to the respondents.
Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivasa Rao, appearing for the state government, opposed the PIL and alleged that the petitioner had suppressed material facts.
According to him, Kondala Rao had been a party to proceedings in certain criminal cases and had filed a revision petition in one of them, but had not disclosed this fact in the PIL. The government therefore questioned the petitioner’s locus standi and conduct in approaching the court.
The High Court bench did not decide the merits of the allegations at this stage. Instead, it asked the parties to place relevant previous judgments before it ahead of the next hearing.
