Haryana paid top lawyer’s clerk Rs 1L for one ‘appearance’

CHANDIGARH: The Haryana government will have to pay as much as Rs 64 lakh to two of country’s top legal eagles – Rohinton F Nariman and G E Vahanvati – for “conferences and just nine appearances” in the Supreme Court in a span of three weeks in an important case relating to defection of five Haryana Janhit Congress (HJC) MLAs. The government, which has been billed up to a maximum of Rs 1.65 lakh for one appearance by the clerk of one of the top lawyers, has a battery of over 200 law officers, headed by an advocate

The Bhupinder Singh Hooda government in Haryana hired these top lawyers after it was faced with the prospect of being reduced to a minority in the assembly, following a Punjab and Haryana high court verdict in December last year, detaching the five MLAs from the assembly. The MLAs had joined Congress after defecting from HJC, led by Bhajan Lal’s son and Hisar MP Kuldeep Bishnoi. While Rohinton, son of eminent jurist Fali S Nariman, is the solicitor general of India, Vahanvati is the attorney general of India. The bill is likely to rise with other legal eagles, like former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium and senior advocates Rajiv Atma Ram and Mohan Jain, yet to send their details for appearing in the high court.

Information received through the RTI Act by TOI has revealed that the highest billed amount has touched Rs 7 lakh for a single appearance, while the highest amount to be paid to their clerks has touched Rs 1.65 lakh for one appearance along with the lawyers. The lawyers were hired to defend the Haryana Speaker.


Fee of SC advocate Rohinton F Nariman

February 22, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
February 23, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
February 28, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
February 29, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
March 13, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
March 14, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
March 15, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
March 18, 2012 | Rs 5.50 lakh
Service tax | Rs 4.53 lakh
Total | Rs 48.53 lakh

Fee of Nariman’s clerk Narayan Verma
February 23, 2012 | Rs 1.10 lakh
February 29, 2012 | Rs 1.10 lakh
March 15, 2012 | Rs 1.65 lakh
March 18, 2012 | Rs 55,000
Total | Rs 4.40 lakh

Fee of SC advocate G E Vahanvati

January 4, 2012 | Rs 10 lakh (for conference and appearance)
Total | 10 lakh

Fee for Vahanvati’s clerk
January 4, 2012 | Rs 1 lakh (for conference and appearance)

Gross total | Rs 64 lakh



7 thoughts on “Haryana paid top lawyer’s clerk Rs 1L for one ‘appearance’”

  1. This is sheer wastage of public money. I understand that this case should have been contested by the Party and not by the Government and the Government has no right to spend money for maintaining the majority in the house.

  2. is not this a case of misuse of public office at both ends and can the law officers on pay roll charge from the public government? Besides the fact that it ought to have been treated as a private dispute between the political parties , whether the public government/State govt. can defend its party at cost of public exhequer? Is it another chapter how public money is misused?

  3. With clients like this, I can see the Supreme Court Advocates and their clerks laughing all the way to the Bank!

  4. Does is not sound scandlous?? SC has to take notice of these facts to know how noble this profession has remained?? How it serves the public interest??? Why this profession is called noble profession???? The whole system has reduced itself to the scam of sucking public money for no good to the public and for the personal monetory gain for the few who are part of the system.

  5. Even more disgusting is the fact, that the Senior Advocates (those who are Designated as Senior Advocates by any of the High court or Supreme Court) do not charge clerkage as a matter of practice. Clerkage is charged by Advocates who are not designated as Senior Advocates. Customarily, Clerckage was meant to be paid to staff of the Advocate so that principal fee is retained by advocate. In case of designate Senior Advocates, who can not file vakalatnama and must have another Advocate as briefing advocate, who actually is entitled to clerkage and not the the Sr. Advocate. Disgusting to see Mr. Nariman and Vavanwati allowing their Clerks to benefit unduly from such malpractice.

  6. There is Advocates Act. N Advocate should be allowed to appear before the Court without filing the Vakalat Nama.

  7. No Advocate should be allowed to appear before the Court without filing Vakalat Nama as per the Act…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s