As the TVK govt settles into office, the party is undertaking another important exercise alongside running the administration — building a legal ecosystem capable of representing it across Madras high court, subordinate courts and Supreme Court.For a political party that entered govt without decades-old organisational machinery like DMK and AIADMK, creating such an ecosystem is not just an administrative requirement. It is also an organisational challenge. Unlike the established Dravidian parties, TVK does not have a network of lawyers across the state who have handled party litigation, election disputes, constitutional matters and govt cases over several decades. Recruiting experienced lawyers from outside its own political circle gives the new govt an immediate pool of institutional knowledge.The emerging appointments suggest the party is attempting to address that gap by adopting a somewhat broader approach: building a loyal party-based legal wing while, at the govt level, drawing upon experienced advocates from across the political spectrum.The appointment of senior lawyer Vijay Narayan as the advocate-general is the first indication of this approach. Vijay Narayan had served as advocate general between 2016 and 2021 when the AIADMK was in office. Yet his appointment by the TVK govt was not viewed primarily through the prism of his previous association with an earlier regime. Instead, he was widely regarded within legal circles as a senior lawyer without a political affiliation.Narayan as advocate general is an important choice. The advocate general is not merely the govt’s senior-most legal representative; the office also occupies an important institutional position in advising the state on constitutional and administrative issues.TVK’s subsequent appointments have reinforced the impression that professional experience is being given considerable weight.Senior advocates P V Balasubramaniam and T Gowthaman were appointed additional advocate generals, while R John Sathyan was appointed state public prosecutor. Together, these appointments represent the beginning of a govt legal structure that extends beyond the party’s own political organisation.The appointment of govt law officers has always had a political dimension. Govts naturally tend to appoint lawyers they trust, particularly because govt litigation often involves politically sensitive matters.This is where TVK’s approach becomes interesting.The party, which is still building its own advocates’ wing, appears to be willing to draw lawyers from outside its immediate political ecosystem for govt assignments. That includes advocates who have previously been associated with, or worked with lawyers connected to, rival parties such as DMK, AIADMK and Naam Tamilar Katchi.The approach was brought into focus by a petition filed before Madras high court by advocate M Gnanasoundari, joint secretary of TVK advocates’ wing in Villupuram district alleging irregularities in the selection of law officers.The high court ultimately closed the petition, but it observed that the petitioner’s allegation that advocates associated with DMK and AIADMK had been appointed indicated that the process could not automatically be characterised as politically biased.The distinction between a party legal wing and the govt’s legal establishment is important. A political party’s legal wing is expected to defend the party’s political interests, assist its cadre, handle election-related litigation and provide legal support to the organisation. Political loyalty can therefore be an important consideration.Govt law officers, however, perform a different function. They represent the state and its departments before courts. Their responsibility is tied to govt litigation and public administration rather than exclusively to the interests of the political party in power. TVK appears to be developing these two structures simultaneously.On one side, its advocates’ wing is expanding, with senior advocates and lawyers joining the party and taking up organisational responsibilities. On the other, the govt is assembling a broader panel of law officers that appears capable of accommodating advocates with different political backgrounds.That distinction could become one of the defining features of TVK’s legal strategy. The strategy, however, carries its own risks. The expansion of the party’s advocates’ wing will inevitably create expectations among lawyers who have worked for TVK. As the govt begins appointing law officers and govt pleaders across districts, questions about representation of party lawyers are likely to surface.For lawyers within the party, govt appointments can be viewed as recognition of their organisational work. For the govt, however, appointing lawyers solely because of party affiliation could compromise the quality of its legal representation and expose the administration to allegations of political patronage.The larger picture suggests a two-track strategy.First, TVK is building a politically committed advocates’ wing that can function as part of its organisational machinery. Second, the govt is attempting to establish a wider legal network that can draw upon the wider legal fraternity.If this model is sustained, TVK could quickly build something that the established political parties acquired over decades: a statewide legal network extending from party-level lawyers to govt law officers and senior counsel appearing in constitutional and politically significant cases. The real test, however, will be whether the distinction between these two networks remains clear.
