Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today dismissed an SLP challenging the Rajasthan High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of advocate Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Rajasthan to argue cases for the State before the Supreme Court.

Mishra is the son of Supreme Court Judge 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 ground that he did not have the minimum 10 years' experience of practice prescribed under the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.

The Rajasthan Government appointed Mishra as AAG for cases before the Supreme Court on August 23, 2024. On the same day, it amended the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018 by inserting Clause 14.8. The clause states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the policy, the appropriate authority would have the power to appoint any counsel to any post after considering the counsel's expertise in the respective field.

Samdaria approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking a writ of quo warranto. He challenged the August 23, 2024 appointment order and Clause 14.8. It was his case that Mishra did not possess the minimum 10 years' practice experience required under the Litigation Policy.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on February 4, 2025. The Court held that the State Government had the power under Clause 14.8 to appoint any counsel to any post after considering the person's experience in the relevant field. It also rejected the challenge to Clause 14.8, holding that there was no material to establish arbitrariness or colourable exercise of power.

Samdaria then filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. On December 2, 2025, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

The Division Bench held that the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018 was not enforceable in law. It noted that the policy was a guideline on how the State should function as a litigant and was not intended to operate as a hard and fast rule.

The Court also rejected Samdaria's argument that publication of the amendment in the Gazette gave the policy statutory force. It held that the notification merely notified the addition of Clause 14.8 to the litigation policy and was not an amendment to a statutory rule.

The High Court further held that a writ of quo warranto would not lie on the basis of an alleged violation of the non-statutory Litigation Policy.

The Division Bench considered the distinction between the Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals. It held that the post of Advocate General derives from Article 165 of the Constitution and is a public post. However, AAGs and Government Counsels in Rajasthan did not fall in the same category. The Court noted that AAGs assist the Advocate General, are assigned different departments by the State Government and do not have a fixed tenure.

Having held that the Litigation Policy was not enforceable and a writ of quo warranto would not lie, the High Court declined to examine Mishra's eligibility and qualifications for appointment as AAG to argue cases before the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench said it was not for the Court to examine whom the State Government considered suitable to represent it in court. It observed that the art of advocacy was not bound by years of experience and that a hard and fast rule could not be laid down for appointing an Advocate General, Additional Advocate General or other government lawyer.

The High Court concluded that Mishra's nomination as AAG for the Supreme Court, despite departing from the general provisions of the State Litigation Policy, could not be said to be illegal, arbitrary, unjustified or whimsical. It dismissed Samdaria's appeal.

The Supreme Court has now dismissed Samdaria's SLP challenging that judgment.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 30942/2026 Diary No. 22928 / 2026

Case Title – Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan

Tags: