The Madras High Court has upheld an earlier order directing the Tamil Nadu Government to reimburse the travel expenses and any pending professional fees payable to advocate B. Mohan, who served as a Special Public Prosecutor in a sensitive criminal case. The Division Bench observed that the State should not deny legitimate claims by relying on technical objections when an advocate performs an important public duty.
Background of the Case
The case arose after the State challenged a Single Judge's order dated October 29, 2025, which required it to pay the pending professional fees and travel expenses of B. Mohan, who had been appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor.
According to the record, the appointment followed a request made by the victim's mother, who sought his appointment because of her confidence in him. Acting on directions issued by the High Court, the State appointed him to conduct the prosecution. The trial extended across multiple districts, requiring him to attend nearly 117 hearings by travelling from Bhavani in Erode district to Namakkal and Madurai.
After the trial concluded, the convicted persons filed appeals. The High Court requested Mohan to continue assisting during the appellate proceedings due to his familiarity with the trial records. His total claim of ₹12.10 lakh included both appearance fees and travel-related expenses. While the State cleared his appearance fees, it refused to reimburse the travel costs, arguing that existing rules did not specifically provide such an allowance for privately appointed Special Public Prosecutors.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan rejected the State's stand, holding that an advocate appointed for an important public prosecution should not be expected to personally bear substantial travel costs incurred while performing official duties.
The Bench observed,
"If an advocate has to travel hundreds of kilometers across districts for 117 hearings, expecting him to pay for the fuel and lodging out of a daily appearance fee is unfair."
The judges also rejected the State's argument that Mohan lacked a separate formal appointment for the appeal stage.
The Bench noted,
"The respondent did not argue the appeals uninvited. The High Court specifically asked him to assist because his presence was necessary to ensure the prosecution's case did not fall apart."
The Court further remarked that spending public money to contest a reimbursement claim, instead of settling it, was not an efficient use of public resources. It also clarified that the case was based on exceptional facts and should not be treated as a general precedent.
Court's Decision
Finding no error in the Single Judge's order, the Madras High Court dismissed the State's writ appeal. It directed the Government to clear all pending professional fees, if any, along with the travel expenses payable to B. Mohan, after adjusting amounts already paid, within four weeks.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
Case Title: The Secretary to Government & Others v. B. Mohan
Case Number: W.A. No. 1747 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
Decision Date: July 13, 2026
