Goa Government has incurred a whopping expenditure of Rest 4, 69, 53, 922 (rupees four cores sixty nine lakhs fifty three thousand nine hundred and twenty two) by way of fees of advocates engaged to defend the State in the High Court from January 2020 to March 2022. This does not include the fees paid to the Advocate General Devidas Pangam. The Government had paid Devidas Pangam Rs 2, 41, 13,732 (Two crores forty one lakhs thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirty two rupees) as fees for the period from June 2019 to January this year.
There are 23 Government advocates appointed in the High Court, besides one Public Prosecutor and five Additional Public Prosecutors. Four of these 23 Government advocates have since resigned while one Additional Public Prosecutor has also put in his papers. He had contested this year’s Assembly elections against Chief Minister Pramod Sawant from the Sanquelim Constituency.
Of the total costs incurred by way of fees, Rs 3, 02 45, 590 (three crores two lakhs forty five thousand five hundred and ninety) was on Government Advocates while Rs 1, 67, 08, 332 (one crore sixty seven lakhs eighty thousand three hundred and thirty two) was paid to the Prosecutors.
A perusal of these documents pertaining to the fees paid to the High Court Advocates and Prosecutors leaves one dazed. The government needs to do an audit on whether such a needless huge fleet of advocates is required in the High Court and as to whether such a huge expenditure on legal fees was justified while it has been unduly burdening the tax payer. At our High Court we have only two Courts and at the most sometimes a third one, so why does the government need such a vast battalion.
There is also a need for introspection as to why experienced advocates on the panel are not allotted cases, while some rookies have pocketed lakhs. In other states Government advocates are allotted cases by rotation which ensures transparency and leaves no room for favouritism or nepotism.
If the government is of the opinion that some of the advocates on its High Court panel are not up to the mark, they should be axed and a compact panel constituted with knowledgeable lawyers who can effectively represent the State.
