On August 23, the Rajasthan government appointed advocate Padmesh Mishra as additional advocate general. The same day, the state government amended its State Litigation Policy. Without the amendment, Mishra’s appointment would not have been possible.
Clause 14.4 of the policy prescribes minimum experience of ten years’ legal practice in the Supreme Court or the Rajasthan High Court for candidates for the post of additional advocate general. The amendment added the following proviso to Clause 14: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Policy, the authority of the appropriate level shall have the power to appoint any counsel to any post after considering his expertise in the respective field.”
Padmesh is the son of Supreme Court judge Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Padmesh’s appointment as additional advocate general – the second-highest law officer in the state – means that he would be representing the government of Rajasthan in the Supreme Court, where his father is a judge.
This raises concerns over the propriety of lawyers practicing in courts where their relatives are judges, fueling the perpetual debate about potential conflicts of interest and nepotism in the Indian judiciary. Over the years, neither the bar nor the bench has been able to resolve this question.
Mishra’s appointment challengedA Jaipur-based advocate, Sunil Samdaria, has challenged Padmesh Mishra’s appointment in the Rajasthan High...
You may also like
Trump vs WSJ explodes: US President sues Murdoch, Wall Street Journal over Epstein letter story; seeks grand jury unsealing
UAE: Power Slap set to return to Abu Dhabi in a highly anticipated event on October, 2025
Golden Retriever is treated to the best birthday ever in adorable video!
Love Island fans in hysterics as show makes 'Coldplay couple dig' during Harrison's exit
Govt plans defence 'takeover' of Lakshadweep island