Appointment of AAG challenged (again) in Rajasthan HC

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has issued notice in a petition challenging the appointment of Additional Advocate General (AAG) Abhinav Sharma .

. In the petition filed by Advocate Sunil Samdaria , it has been contended that Sharma’s April 2018 appointment has AAG is violative of the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Departmental Manual, 1999 , the Litigation Policy of 2011 , the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Brijeshwar Singh Chahal , as well as Abhinav Sharma’s personal undertaking before the Supreme Court in 2015.

. As recounted in the petition, Sharma had initially been appointed an AAG in January 2014. However, in view of three criminal cases pending against him, Samdaria challenged this appointment before the Rajasthan High Court the same year.

. In April 2015, the High Court quashed Sharma’s 2014 appointment as AAG on grounds of an absence of personal integrity and lack of effective consultation prior to the challenged appointment, which served to vitiate the same for having compromised the institutional integrity of the AAG’s office.

. Whereas a Special Leave Petition was filed challenging this verdict, Sharma eventually undertook to demit the office of AAG before the Supreme Court. This, Samdaria contends, also points towards Sharma’s implied acceptance of the High Court’s 2015 decision disqualifying him from appointment as AAG.

. “ By not choosing to contest the judgment of High Court on merits, Respondent No.2 tacitly accepted the disqualification / ineligibility recorded by the High Court on account of ‘absence of personal integrity’ which had compromised the institutional integrity of the office of Additional Advocate general.”

. The Supreme Court’s order mentions that the appeals were “allowed”, and the case was disposed of only in view of Sharma’s undertaking that he would voluntarily give up the office of AAG. As noted in the Court’s order, nothing survived to adjudicate once Sharma resigned from the AAG’s office.

. “ At the very threshold, the Appellant – Dr. Abhinav Sharma states that in order to preserve the high standards that attach to the profession of an advocate, he is willing not to exercise any of the functions and duties of a Government Lawyer and / or Additional Advocate General and he would voluntarily demit the office of Additional Advocate General.”

. Consequently, the Rajasthan government accepted Sharma’s resignation in June 2015, effective from May that year.

. However, in April this year, the Rajasthan government again notified the appointment of Sharma as an AAG, presumably on the premise that he has been discharged in certain criminal proceedings.

. On the other hand, Samdaria contends that this was an erroneous decision, arguing that it was made ignoring certain criminal proceedings still pending against Sharma. Samdaria also points towards disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council against Sharma which are yet to be completed. In such circumstances, Samdaria has challenged the re-appointment of Sharma as an AAG a colourable exercise of power and a a brazen act of official arbitrariness.

. This latest challenge had initially been made before the Supreme Court. However, it was eventually withdrawn from the Supreme Court and filed before a Division Bench of the High Court.

. Notice in the matter was issued by the Bench of Justices Mohammad Rafiq and Goverdhan Bardhar on Monday. The matter has been posted to be taken up next in December.

. Read the Order:

. Read the Petition:

Appointment of AAG challenged (again) in Rajasthan HC

Meera Emmanuel

Related Stories