The Supreme Courtroom at the moment dismissed an SLP difficult the Rajasthan High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of advocate Padmesh Mishra as Further Advocate Normal (AAG) of Rajasthan to argue circumstances for the State earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
Mishra is the son of Supreme Courtroom Choose Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul Pancholi dismissed the SLP filed by one advocate Sunil Samdaria, who had challenged Mishra’s appointment on the bottom that he didn’t have the minimal 10 years’ expertise of follow prescribed below the Rajasthan State Litigation Coverage, 2018.
The Rajasthan Authorities appointed Mishra as AAG for circumstances earlier than the Supreme Courtroom on August 23, 2024. On the identical day, it amended the Rajasthan State Litigation Coverage, 2018 by inserting Clause 14.8. The clause states that, however something contained within the coverage, the suitable authority would have the ability to nominate any counsel to any publish after contemplating the counsel’s experience within the respective area.
Samdaria approached the Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom in search of a writ of quo warranto. He challenged the August 23, 2024 appointment order and Clause 14.8. It was his case that Mishra didn’t possess the minimal 10 years’ follow expertise required below the Litigation Coverage.
The Single Choose dismissed the writ petition on February 4, 2025. The Courtroom held that the State Authorities had the ability below Clause 14.8 to nominate any counsel to any publish after contemplating the particular person’s expertise within the related area. It additionally rejected the problem to Clause 14.8, holding that there was no materials to ascertain arbitrariness or colourable train of energy.
Samdaria then filed an attraction earlier than the Division Bench of the Excessive Courtroom. On December 2, 2025, the Division Bench dismissed the attraction.
The Division Bench held that the Rajasthan State Litigation Coverage, 2018 was not enforceable in regulation. It famous that the coverage was a tenet on how the State ought to operate as a litigant and was not meant to function as a tough and quick rule.
The Courtroom additionally rejected Samdaria’s argument that publication of the modification within the Gazette gave the coverage statutory pressure. It held that the notification merely notified the addition of Clause 14.8 to the litigation coverage and was not an modification to a statutory rule.
The Excessive Courtroom additional held {that a} writ of quo warranto wouldn’t lie on the premise of an alleged violation of the non-statutory Litigation Coverage.
The Division Bench thought of the excellence between the Advocate Normal and Further Advocate Generals. It held that the publish of Advocate Normal derives from Article 165 of the Structure and is a public publish. Nevertheless, AAGs and Authorities Counsels in Rajasthan didn’t fall in the identical class. The Courtroom famous that AAGs help the Advocate Normal, are assigned completely different departments by the State Authorities and don’t have a hard and fast tenure.
Having held that the Litigation Coverage was not enforceable and a writ of quo warranto wouldn’t lie, the Excessive Courtroom declined to look at Mishra’s eligibility and {qualifications} for appointment as AAG to argue circumstances earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
The Division Bench stated it was not for the Courtroom to look at whom the State Authorities thought of appropriate to signify it in courtroom. It observed that the artwork of advocacy was not sure by years of expertise and {that a} onerous and quick rule couldn’t be laid down for appointing an Advocate Normal, Further Advocate Normal or different authorities lawyer.
The Excessive Courtroom concluded that Mishra’s nomination as AAG for the Supreme Courtroom, regardless of departing from the final provisions of the State Litigation Coverage, couldn’t be stated to be unlawful, arbitrary, unjustified or whimsical. It dismissed Samdaria’s attraction.
The Supreme Courtroom has now dismissed Samdaria’s SLP difficult that judgment.
Case no. – SLP(C) No. 30942/2026 Diary No. 22928 / 2026
Case Title – Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan
