Karnataka’s costly legal outsourcing

The Karnataka government’s growing reliance on private senior advocates in high-profile cases raises a troubling question: why does a state with one of the largest legal establishments in India repeatedly look outside for advocacy? The state has an Advocate General — K Shashi Kiran Shetty — 21 additional advocates general and a large legal contingent in the high court, Dharwad Bench, and the Supreme Court. Yet, in important matters, the government increasingly opts for senior counsels at high public cost. This pattern was laid bare by disclosures in the legislative assembly regarding expenditure on Special Investigation Teams (SITs). Of the Rs 4.54 crore spent on four SITs since May 2023, Rs 3.31 crore was incurred on the investigation and prosecution of cases against former Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna. The cases were pursued diligently, resulting in a conviction and life sentence, but the scale of expenditure raises institutional concerns. Former Advocate General Ravivarma Kumar, appointed as special public prosecutor, was paid Rs 2.41 crore in fees. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal received Rs 15.5 lakh for a single appearance. Advocates B N Jagadeesha and Ashok N Nayak were paid a total of Rs 41.07 lakh. The state’s decision to enlist such top-tier lawyers in cases involving sexual offences is understandable, but the extent to which private counsel was engaged is hard to justify given the state’s vast in-house legal machinery.

This is not an isolated instance. In the Mekedatu dispute, the state engaged senior advocate Shyam Divan to lead arguments. In the Darshan Thoogudeepa case, it appointed P Prasanna Kumar as special public prosecutor in the high court, and later brought in senior advocate Siddharth Luthra before the Supreme Court, where the actor’s bail was cancelled. Meanwhile, the government’s own law officers have had mixed outcomes. They succeeded in swiftly getting the high court’s interim stay on menstrual leave vacated, but suffered reverses when the order closing Jan Aushadhi Kendras in government hospitals was quashed. The courts have also granted relief to those accused of promoting communal disharmony and struck down an order regulating public gatherings on government premises. These outcomes merit introspection.

Engaging eminent senior counsels for sensitive cases is a recognised practice. But when it becomes the default rather than the exception, it points to a deeper malaise. Either the state lacks confidence in its own lawyers, or appointments to government panels are not based on merit. Both scenarios are damaging. The first bleeds the exchequer; the second erodes institutional capacity from within. A state that constantly turns to outside external advocates should answer a basic question: why maintain an expensive legal machinery that it does not trust?