Rajasthan High Court seeks response from son of Supreme Court judge on plea challenging appointment as AAG

The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Advocate Padmesh Mishra on a plea challenging his appointment as an Additional Advocate General (AAG) to represent the Rajasthan government before the Supreme Court of India..A bench of Justices Inderjeet Singh and Mukesh Rajpurohit heard the matter today and sought Mishra's response to the plea."Notice issued to respondent no. 2 returnable in 1st week of July," the Court directed..Padmesh Mishra, who is the son of a sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, was appointed as an AAG by the State on August 23, 2024.The appointment was challenged before the High Court by Advocate Sunil Samdaria, who alleged that Mishra did not have the requisite 'minimum experience of practice for 10 years’ as required under Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.Mishra has only five years of experience in the legal profession since he was enrolled only in 2019, Samdaria's plea alleged..On February 4, single-judge Justice Sudesh Bansal dismissed this plea, prompting an appeal before the High Court's division bench.On March 3, the High Court's Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava recused from hearing the matter..In the February 4 ruling now under challenge, Justice Bansal ruled that 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, the single-judge held. He further said that 10 years of experience was not mandatory for the post.The judge also declined to quash Clause 14.8 of the 2018 Litigation Policy, which was alleged to have been included at the last minute to accommodate Mishra's appointment as an AAG. The Court opined that this was an executive decision of the State Cabinet led by the Chief Minister, which cannot be interfered with by the Court without convincing evidence.Samdaria has now challenged this ruling by way of an appeal..Among other arguments, he has reasserted that Clause 14.8 ought to be quashed since it is manifestly arbitrary and renders the rest of the policy redundant. This clause empowers "an authority of appropriate level‟ to appoint any counsel to any post after considering his expertise, regardless of anything else contained in the policy, Samdaria noted. He added that this clause was only added to enable Mishra's appointment as an AAG and that such an appointment "was as arbitrary as it could be.".Advocate Sunil Samdaria appeared in person.Additional Advocate General Bharat Vyas appeared for the State..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.