Recently, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of advocate Padmesh Mishra as an Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State government before the Supreme Court.

Mishra, appointed as AAG on August 23, 2024, is the son of a sitting Supreme Court judge. His appointment was contested by advocate Sunil Samdaria, who argued that Mishra lacked the requisite 'minimum experience of practice for 10 years' as mandated under Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018. The plea claimed that Mishra, having been enrolled only in 2019, had merely five years of legal experience.

However, Justice Sudesh Bansal ruled that while the State government is expected to adhere to the Litigation Policy, it does not hold statutory force equivalent to legislation and thus cannot be enforced in a court of law. The Court further clarified that the 10-year experience requirement was not a mandatory prerequisite for appointment as AAG.

Examining Clause 14.4 in detail, the Court observed that it grants the State Government the discretion to appoint an advocate as AAG following its prescribed criteria or prevailing law. Consequently, the minimum 10-year experience requirement was not deemed essential or compulsory for such an appointment.

Samdaria also challenged Clause 14.8 of the 2018 Litigation Policy, alleging it was introduced at the last moment to facilitate Mishra's appointment. He contended that the clause granted unrestricted authority to the government to appoint any counsel without an objective criterion, rendering it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court, however, held that the inclusion of Clause 14.8 was an executive decision of the State Cabinet and could not be interfered with absent strong and convincing evidence of arbitrariness or bias. While acknowledging that Mishra was appointed as a panel lawyer on August 20, 2024, and then elevated to AAG just three days later, coinciding with the introduction of Clause 14.8, the Court noted that this sequence of events might merely be coincidental. It ruled that such circumstances alone could not justify allegations of arbitrariness, bias, or misuse of power by the Cabinet.

Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that Mishra's appointment was made without effective consultation with the Advocate General. It found that the petitioner failed to establish that such consultation was a mandatory requirement. Reiterating that the Litigation Policy serves only as executive guidance rather than a binding legal framework, the Court concluded that Mishra’s appointment could not be deemed illegal.

Despite dismissing the petition, the Court appreciated the petitioner’s bona fide attempt to scrutinize the appointment process. It acknowledged that while the challenge was unsuccessful, Samdaria had presented his case with precision and sincerity, and there was no indication of malice behind his efforts.

Advocate Sunil Samdaria appeared in person, while Additional Advocate General Bharat Vyas, along with advocates Jay Vardhan Joshi, Anima Chaturvedi, Niti Jain, Praveer Sharma, and Harshwardhan Katara, represented the State. Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta and advocate Shashwat Purohit appeared on behalf of AAG Padmesh Mishra.