Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice in Petition Challenging Appointment of Supreme Court Judge’s Son as Additional Advocate General
(Judicial Quest News Network)
In a high-profile legal development, the Rajasthan High Court has issued a notice to advocate Padmesh Mishra, the son of Supreme Court Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, regarding a plea challenging his recent appointment as Additional Advocate General (AAG) to represent the Rajasthan government before the Supreme Court of India.
The bench, comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Mukesh Raj Purohit, heard the matter on Tuesday and directed Mishra to respond to the petition. The court has scheduled the next hearing for the first week of July.
The Controversial Appointment
Padmesh Mishra was appointed as Additional Advocate General on March 23, 2024. His appointment has come under scrutiny following a plea filed by advocate Sunil Samadaria, who alleged that Mishra does not meet the minimum practice experience requirement of 10 years as stipulated under Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018. Mishra, who was enrolled as an advocate in 2019, has only five years of professional experience.
Previous Rulings and Legal Arguments
The matter was previously heard by a single judge, Justice Sudesh Bansal, who dismissed advocate Sunil Samadaria, plea on February 4. Samadaria subsequently appealed to the division bench, but Chief Justice Mahindra Mohan Shrivastav recused himself from hearing the case in February.
Justice Bansal’s ruling asserted that the state is expected to follow the litigation policy as a guideline, but it does not carry the statutory force of law. The judge further clarified that the requirement of 10 years of experience is not mandatory for the position of Additional Advocate General.
Justice Bansal also rejected claims regarding Clause 14.8 of the 2018 litigation policy, which was alleged to have been added specifically to facilitate Mishra’s appointment. The court noted that this clause represents an executive decision made by the state cabinet, led by the Chief Minister, and cannot be overturned by the judiciary without substantial evidence of wrongdoing.
Challenge Against the Appointment
Undeterred by the earlier ruling, Samadaria has now challenged the decision through an appeal. He argued that Clause 14.8 is manifestly arbitrary and undermines the integrity of the policy. According to Samadaria, this clause empowers the appropriate authority to appoint any counsel to any post based solely on discretion, without regard to the established policy framework.
Samadaria contended that the clause was added solely to legitimize Mishra’s appointment and described the appointment as “as arbitrary as it could be.” He appeared in person during the proceedings, while Additional Advocate General Bharat Vyas represented the state.
Ongoing Legal Debate
The case has sparked considerable public and legal debate, raising questions about the transparency and meritocracy of appointments in the state’s legal system. As the Rajasthan High Court prepares to delve deeper into the matter, the legal community and the public await a crucial ruling that could have far-reaching implications for governance and judicial appointments in the state.
