Rajasthan High Court Seeks Response from Son of Supreme Court Judge on Plea Challenging Appointment as Additional Advocate General
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit issued notice to Advocate Padmesh Mishra on a plea challenging his appointment as Additional Advocate General (AAG) to represent the State of Rajasthan before the Supreme Court of India. The Court made the notice returnable in the first week of July and directed Mishra, who is arrayed as respondent no. 2, to respond. The challenge arises from an appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition questioning his eligibility and the applicability of conditions under the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.
On 23 August 2024, the State of Rajasthan appointed Advocate Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General to appear on its behalf before the Supreme Court of India. Mishra is the son of sitting Supreme Court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The appointment was challenged by Advocate Sunil Samdaria through a writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner contended that Padmesh Mishra did not possess the minimum ten years of legal experience required under Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018. It was stated in the petition that Mishra was enrolled with the Bar in 2019 and had only five years of legal practice at the time of his appointment.
The petitioner submitted that the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause 14.4 were not fulfilled and that the appointment should be set aside on that basis. The petition also challenged Clause 14.8 of the Litigation Policy, which permits the appointment of any legal practitioner by “an authority of appropriate level” based on expertise, notwithstanding other provisions of the policy. According to the petitioner, this clause had been introduced specifically to enable Mishra’s appointment and rendered the rest of the policy redundant.
The writ petition was decided by a single-judge bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal. In the order passed on 4 February 2025, the Court held that while the State is expected to adhere to its litigation policy, the policy is in the nature of executive instructions. The Court held that such instructions do not carry statutory force and are not binding in the manner of a legislative or legal statute.
Justice Bansal further held that the requirement of ten years of professional experience for the post of Additional Advocate General was not mandatory. The Court declined to interfere with the appointment on that ground.
With regard to Clause 14.8, the Court recorded that it was a Cabinet decision of the State Government and could not be set aside in the absence of convincing evidence demonstrating arbitrariness. The petition to quash Clause 14.8 was dismissed.
Following the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Division Bench. On 3 March 2025, Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava recused himself from hearing the matter.
Thereafter, the matter was listed before a Division Bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit. On 8 April 2025, the Court issued notice to respondent no. 2, Padmesh Mishra, and made it returnable in the first week of July.
In the course of the appeal, the petitioner reasserted that Clause 14.8 should be quashed. It was submitted that the clause was manifestly arbitrary and enabled appointments without reference to the eligibility criteria set out in the rest of the policy. The petitioner alleged that the provision was included to accommodate Mishra’s appointment and that the appointment was arbitrary.
The previous order under challenge, passed by Justice Sudesh Bansal on 4 February 2025, included the following findings:
“Although the State is expected to follow its Litigation Policy, the same is only in the nature of executive instructions for guidance.”
“It cannot be claimed to have statutory force like a legislation/legal statute before the court of law.”
“Ten years of experience was not mandatory for the post.”
“Clause 14.8 was an executive decision of the State Cabinet led by the Chief Minister, which cannot be interfered with by the Court without convincing evidence.”
These findings are now under challenge in the pending appeal.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Advocate Sunil Samdaria
For the Respondents: Additional Advocate General Bharat Vyas
Case Title: Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Bench: Justice Inderjeet Singh, Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit
