The Rajasthan High Court on 16 June 2025 dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ankur Agrawal, challenging the appointment of Justice Dinesh Mehta as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice A.G. Masih and Justice Arun Monga, rejected the PIL, terming it meritless and lacking public interest.

"We find that the petition lacks substance and is not maintainable either in law or on facts," the bench clearly stated.

The PIL raised questions over the procedure followed in Justice Dinesh Mehta’s appointment. However, the court observed that the appointment had been duly made under Article 217 of the Constitution of India after scrutiny by the collegium system, which includes the High Court, Supreme Court, and the President of India.

Read also:- Kerala High Court: No Liability on Insurer If Policy Cancelled Before Delivery Due to Non-Payment of Premium

The petitioner, Ankur Agrawal, alleged irregularities and bias in the appointment, but the court noted that he failed to show any concrete evidence or personal harm, which is necessary for maintainability of a PIL.

"There is neither any violation of legal provisions nor any illegality shown in the appointment procedure," the court emphasized.

Read also:- ED Withdraws Summons Issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal After Supreme Court Bar Body's Objection

Further, the bench stated that the petition appeared to be filed with ulterior motives, and not genuinely in the public interest. They also warned against the misuse of PILs to settle personal scores or publicity interests.

"Public Interest Litigations are meant for genuine public causes, not for targeting individuals or the judiciary without valid ground," the bench remarked.

Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail to Ankit Bansal in ₹704 Crore GST Fraud Case

The judgment also re-affirmed the established process for judicial appointments, stressing the role of the collegium and the necessary constitutional safeguards.

"The constitutional mechanism under Article 217 has been strictly followed in this case," the court reiterated.

The court concluded that the petition was devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed at the threshold itself. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed, and no further orders were passed.

Case Title: Ankur Agrawal vs. Union of India & Others

By: Advocate Aditya Sharma,

Email: adityasharma.as105@gmail.com