Today, On 8th April, The Rajasthan High Court issued a notice to Padmesh Mishra, the son of Supreme Court Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, seeking his response to a petition challenging his appointment as Additional Advocate General (AAG). The plea raises concerns over potential conflict of interest, as Padmesh was appointed in 2024 to represent the state before the Supreme Court. The petition questions the transparency and fairness of the selection process. The matter is currently under judicial scrutiny.
The Rajasthan High Court issued a notice to Advocate Padmesh Mishra regarding a petition contesting 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 case and requested Mishra’s response to the petition.
Also Read: Punjab appoints five Additional Advocates General for Supreme Court
The Court directed,
“Notice issued to respondent no. 2 returnable in 1st week of July,”
Padmesh Mishra, the son of sitting Supreme Court Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, was appointed as AAG on August 23, 2024.
The appointment was challenged in the High Court by Advocate Sunil Samdaria, who claimed that Mishra lacked the required “minimum experience of practice for 10 years” as mandated by Clause 14.4 of the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.
According to Samdaria’s petition, Mishra only has five years of legal experience since he was enrolled in 2019.
On February 4, Justice Sudesh Bansal dismissed this petition, leading to an appeal before the High Court’s division bench. On March 3, Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava recused himself from the case.
Also Read: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 3 Judicial Officers As Judges For Rajasthan High Court
In the February 4 ruling now under scrutiny, Justice Bansal stated that while the State is expected to adhere to its Litigation Policy, this policy serves merely as executive guidance and does not possess statutory authority akin to legislation.
He further noted that 10 years of experience was not a prerequisite for the position.
The judge also refused to cancel Clause 14.8 of the 2018 Litigation Policy, which was alleged to have been added last minute to facilitate Mishra’s appointment as AAG. The Court indicated that this was an executive decision made by the State Cabinet, led by the Chief Minister, and could not be contested without compelling evidence.
Samdaria has now appealed this ruling, reiterating that Clause 14.8 should be annulled as it is manifestly arbitrary and undermines the remainder of the policy.
This clause allows “an authority of appropriate level” to appoint any counsel to any position after evaluating their expertise, irrespective of other stipulations in the policy.
Samdaria argued that “this provision was introduced solely to facilitate Mishra’s appointment as AAG and described the appointment as as arbitrary as it could be.”
Advocate Sunil Samdaria represented himself, while Additional Advocate General Bharat Vyas appeared for the State.