Should a lawyer practise in a court where his relative is a judge?

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 challenged

A Jaipur-based advocate, Sunil Samdaria, has challenged Padmesh Mishra’s appointment in the Rajasthan High...

Read more