At the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur on December 2, tensions were a bit high in Courtroom No. 1 as a practicing advocate, Sunil Samdaria, argued his own case before a Division Bench. He questioned the very authority of another lawyer appointed as Additional Advocate General (AAG) for Supreme Court matters to hold that prestigious office. But the bench remained firm: the petition didn’t meet the legal bar.
The judgment was pronounced by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu.
Samdaria originally filed a writ of quo warranto - a legal tool asking “by what authority do you hold office?” He claimed that the AAG (respondent No. 2) lacked the mandatory ten years’ experience said to be required by the Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018.
Not stopping there, he even challenged Clause 14.8, which permits the government to appoint any counsel based on expertise. He alleged arbitrariness and political convenience. But the Single Judge rejected his claims, leading him to file the present special appeal.
Court’s Observations
Right at the start, the Bench asked Samdaria to establish whether the Litigation Policy is legally enforceable - a make-or-break point.
The State’s position was clear:
- This policy is only a guideline,
- It does not create enforceable rights,
- And the government retains discretion over law officer appointments.
The judges agreed.
“The State Litigation Policy, 2018, is not enforceable in law,” the bench noted, stressing it does not have statutory force.
They also reminded that a writ of quo warranto applies only when the office is a “public post” governed by statutory eligibility rules. Here, the Court found a clear distinction:
- Advocate General = public constitutional office
- Additional Advocate General = not a public post in the same sense
Since the AAG’s selection is professional engagement, not a statutory appointment, the door to judicial intervention was mostly shut.
The Court added a practical note that felt almost like courtroom wisdom:
“Art of advocacy is not bound by years of experience… it is best left to the litigant to decide.”
Decision
The Bench concluded that:
- The Litigation Policy cannot be enforced through a writ.
- Clause 14.8 allowing flexible appointments is not illegal.
- A writ of quo warranto is not maintainable here.
- The State is free to choose lawyers it trusts to represent its case.
So, the special appeal met the same fate as the original petition.
The appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
And with that, the courtroom moved on, while the appointment of the AAG remains unaffected.
Title:- Sunil Samdaria vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.