In a significant legal development, the Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to Advocate Padmesh Mishra concerning a legal challenge to his appointment as an Additional Advocate General (AAG). Mishra, who was appointed to represent the Rajasthan government before the Supreme Court of India, is the son of sitting Supreme Court Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The bench, composed of Justices Inderjeet Singh and Mukesh Rajpurohit, directed that the notice be returnable by the first week of July. This action follows an appeal against a February ruling by Justice Sudesh Bansal, which dismissed the initial plea against Mishra’s appointment.
The challenge was initiated by Advocate Sunil Samdaria, who argued that Mishra does not meet the ‘minimum experience of practice for 10 years’ as stipulated under Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018. According to Samdaria, Mishra, enrolled in 2019, has only five years in the legal profession, falling short of the required decade.
In dismissing the plea, Justice Bansal acknowledged that while the state is expected to adhere to its Litigation Policy, these guidelines do not carry the weight of statutory law and are meant for internal guidance only. He further determined that the 10-year experience prerequisite was not obligatory for the position.
Furthermore, Justice Bansal opted not to invalidate Clause 14.8 of the Litigation Policy, which allegedly was amended last minute to facilitate Mishra’s appointment. This clause allows for the appointment of any counsel to any post, considering the individual’s expertise, irrespective of other policy provisions.
Advocate Samdaria’s appeal argues that Clause 14.8 is “manifestly arbitrary” and undermines the integrity of the entire policy, insisting that it was specifically tailored to benefit Mishra.
