Rajasthan High Court dismisses plea challenging Padmesh Mishra’s appointment as AAG

Samdaria had prayed that Mishra be stopped from functioning as the AAG and that the order effecting change in the Policy too should be stayed.

In its order dated February 4, a bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal said that although the state government is expected to follow the guidelines prescribed in the Litigation Policy, “it is also equally true that such policy is in the nature of executive instructions for guidance, which cannot be claimed to have a statutory force like a legislation/ legal statute before the court of law.”

Rejecting the challenge to the addition of a new clause in the policy, the HC said that “the Supreme Court has held that the Courts ought not to venture into the question as to whether a particular public policy is wise and the Court should be loathe in interference with policy decisions.”

Regarding the objection over lack of 10 years’ experience, the court said that this requirement “has not been held as an essential and mandatory pre-requisite for appointment of Additional Advocate Generals.”

Initially, Mishra was appointed as a Panel Lawyer in the SC on August 20, 2024. Three days later, this was withdrawn to appoint him as the AAG. The order withdrawing Padmesh’s appointment as the Panel Lawyer, the notification on change in Policy, and Padmesh’s appointment as the AAG are all dated August 23.

Samdaria had contended that this “clearly demonstrates that entire exercise was done to bestow benevolence” upon Mishra by the state government which makes Mishra’s appointment “grossly illegal, invalid and per se arbitrary.”

However, the Court said that “The sequence of events may be a coincidence, but cannot be made a basis to draw an assumption of arbitrariness, biasness or colourable exercise of powers by the Cabinet,” and that the Cabinet did its “due diligence.”