Non-Appointment Of AAG After Consultation With High Court Not Contempt: Rajasthan HC Closes Suo Motu Criminal Proceedings Against State
Closing a suo motu criminal plea registered by a single judge on the non-issuance of order by State appointing Branmanand Sandu Advocate Cum Additional Advocate General despite the high court's consent, the Rajasthan High Court observed that it did not amount to contempt nor could it be considered a criminal matter.A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice...
Closing a suo motu criminal plea registered by a single judge on the non-issuance of order by State appointing Branmanand Sandu Advocate Cum Additional Advocate General despite the high court's consent, the Rajasthan High Court observed that it did not amount to contempt nor could it be considered a criminal matter.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma in its order observed:
"Merely because the matter relates to appointment of a Government Advocate after consultation with the High Court, as required under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. (as it then existed), it cannot be treated as a criminal matter. This is essentially a service issue. It is well settled that no PIL can be entertained in service matters. We are also of the view that non-issuance of any appointment order after consultation with the High Court, as provided under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., does not amount to contempt".
The suo motu case, registered as a criminal writ petition, happened when two advocates placed before the Court photocopy of an April 16, 2024 letter written by the high court's Registrar General to the Principal Secretary of the state's Law & Legal Affairs Department regarding the high court's consent for appointment of Brahmanand Sandu as Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General and Additional Public Prosecutor in Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur under Section 24(1) of Cr.P.C.
The bench noted, "It appears that the learned Single Judge, who took suo moto cognizance, was persuaded to form a prima facie opinion that non-issuance of appointment order after consultation is a derogatory act or contemptuous act on the part of the authorities of the State. The learned Single Judge was also persuaded to form a prima facie view whether the Government without any good reason can withhold the consent given by the High Court as regards appointment of Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General".
On above prima facie satisfaction, the case was directed to be treated as criminal writ petition and notices were directed to issued to various authorities. The Single Judge had directed Principal Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department to remain personally present before the Court along with original record/file as regards the process regarding appointment of Shri Brahmanand Sandu as Government Advocatecum-Additional Advocate General.
The bench noted that the counsel who appeared before the Single Judge were not present before it and it was not known as to on whose instruction, they appeared in the Court to place copy of letter dated April 16, 2024.
It was argued on behalf of the AAG appearing for the State, as well as the senior advocate appearing for the High Court that the issue raised could not be a matter of criminal writ petition, nor a contemptuous act. The consent sent by High Court was pending consideration before the State on which it is for the Government to take decision.
The bench after taking note of the contentions observed if the concerned person in whose case consultative process has been adopted and even thereafter, he has not been appointed, "it is only an individual grievance".
"Such person, if so advised, may approach the Court by filing appropriate petition," the bench added.
The court thus closed the plea while granting liberty to Brahmanand Sandu in taking any remedy which may be available to him under the law.
Case Title: Suo Moto v the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 150