Sidharth Luthra: High-Profile Legal Battles and Fee Controversy in South India

Senior Advocate సిద్ధార్థ్ లూథ్రా (Sidharth Luthra) has recently emerged as a central figure in high-stakes legal disputes across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. From defending the Chief Minister of Telangana in a politically charged corruption case to facing a public challenge over his professional fees in Andhra Pradesh, Luthra's current engagements highlight the intersection of law, politics, and public finance in South India.

Andhra Pradesh High Court: The ₹15.80 Crore Fee Dispute

A significant legal controversy has arisen regarding the professional fees paid to సిద్ధార్థ్ లూథ్రా by the Andhra Pradesh government. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Kondala Rao, a retired railway employee, has challenged the legality of payments totaling ₹15.80 crore made to Luthra between June 2024 and June 2025.

The petitioner argues that these payments directly violate Government Order (GO) 214, issued in August 2022, which reportedly capped case fees at ₹3 lakh. The PIL seeks the recovery of the excess amount paid from the state treasury. However, during the hearing, a bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan questioned the specificity of the challenge, asking why Luthra was being singled out when governments have historically paid lawyer fees [1].

The state government, represented by Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas, countered the PIL by alleging that the petitioner concealed facts about his own involvement in criminal cases and previous revision petitions [2]. The court has adjourned the matter, directing both sides to present previous judicial rulings on government legal fees.

Defending Telangana CM in 'Vote for Note' Case

Simultaneously, సిద్ధార్థ్ లూథ్రా is representing Telangana CM Revanth Reddy in the Supreme Court regarding the controversial 'Vote for Note' case. In arguments presented on September 17, 2026, Luthra contended that the case is "politically motivated" and legally flawed under the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Act.

Luthra's primary legal arguments include:

• Non-Applicability of ACB Act: He argued that under Sections 7 and 11 of the ACB Act 1988, the crime is the taking of a bribe, not the giving of one, particularly for non-government employees [3].
• Procedural Irregularity: Luthra claimed that the FIR was registered only after the CM was "trapped," which he argues is a violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [3].

The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a final judgment, with the next hearing potentially scheduled for September 30, 2026.

Comparison of Current Legal Engagements

Aspect	AP Fee Controversy	Telangana 'Vote for Note' Case
Role	Recipient of Govt Fees	Defense Counsel for CM
Core Issue	Violation of GO 214 (Fee Cap)	Validity of ACB FIR
Court	Andhra Pradesh High Court	Supreme Court of India
Status	Adjourned / Under Review	Ongoing / Hearing Pending