Premium

HC upholds Padmesh Mishra’s appointment as AAG, says not every policy wields statutory force

Commenting on the State Litigation Policy, the HC said, “Not every kind of policy wields statutory force,” while citing a Supreme Court order.

3 min readJaipurUpdated: Dec 6, 2025 11:55 AM IST

The bench upheld Mishra’s appointment, saying that it “cannot be said, in any manner, to be illegal, arbitrary and unjustified or whimsical.” (File)

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld its single bench order which had dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as Rajasthan’s Additional Advocate General.

In his original petition which was heard by the single bench, advocate Sunil Samdaria had said that Mishra was appointed as an AAG even though he did not have the requisite 10 years’ experience to be eligible as an AAG as per the state’s Litigation Policy; that his appointment was not made with effective consultation of the Advocate General and was thus in gross violation of Clause 14.2 of the Litigation Policy of 2018; and that to circumvent the prescription of requirement of minimum experience of 10 years, government had made an eleventh hour amendment on August 23, 2024 incorporating Clause 14.8 in the Litigation Policy, which had enabled authority of the appropriate level to appoint anyone as a counsel on any post on the basis of their expertise.

In its order on February 4 this year, the bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal had dismissed Samdaria’s petition, with Samdaria subsequently filing an appeal in the HC, stating that the learned single judge Bench “has committed a serious error in holding that the office of AAG is not a public office” as the test for determining a public office is whether it is “remunerated by Government” and that their appointment “under aegis and orders of the Governor” further supports this classification.

However, a bench of acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu on December 2 upheld Mishra’s appointment, saying that it “cannot be said, in any manner, to be illegal, arbitrary and unjustified or whimsical.”

Commenting on the State Litigation Policy, the HC said, “Not every kind of policy wields statutory force,” while citing a Supreme Court order.

“Policy is, thus, a guideline. It advises how State as a litigant should function. However, from a bare reading of the Clauses … it is apparent that even the circulars issued prior to the State Litigation Policy have been allowed to continue. The framers nowhere intended it to become a hard and fast rule. If the State would have wanted to make a rule, it could always make a Rule in terms of Proviso to Article 209 of the Constitution which would have resulted in creation of posts,” the HC noted, “rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the State Litigation Policy is enforceable in law.”

In this context, the HC said that it “would not examine the eligibility and qualifications of” Mishra “for being appointed as an Additional Advocate General of the State to argue cases in the SC. It is otherwise also not within the four corners of this court to examine as to whom the State Government thinks it proper to be an expert, in their opinion, for arguing their cases and presenting them before the court. Art of presentation of a case and art of advocacy is not bound by years of experience.”

Hamza Khan

Hamza Khan is a seasoned Correspondent for The Indian Express, specifically reporting from the diverse and politically dynamic state of Rajasthan. Based in Jaipur, he provides high-authority coverage on the state's governance, legal landscape, and social issues, directly supporting the "Journalism of Courage" ethos of the publication. Expertise Politics & Governance: Comprehensive tracking of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, including policy changes (e.g., the Right to Health Bill and Anti-Mob Lynching Bills), bypoll dynamics, and the shifting power structures between the BJP and Congress. ... Read More