First-of-its-Kind Confrontation in Recent Memory Over Appointment of HC Chief Justice; Mann Invokes Federal Rights; ASG Says State Has a Role to Give Views, Not Exercise Veto
Chandigarh
In a first-of-its-kind development in recent memory, the Punjab Government on Sunday formally moved to oppose the appointment of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, with the state Cabinet on Sunday unanimously demanding that his appointment and oath be “kept on hold” until Punjab’s views are obtained and considered. The move comes barely hours before Justice Mishra is scheduled to take oath at 9.30 am on Monday at Punjab Lok Bhavan, after the Centre notified his appointment despite Punjab having not communicated its response to the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation.
Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann convened an emergency Cabinet meeting on Sunday evening through videoconferencing, with Ministers joining from the offices of Deputy Commissioners in their respective districts as most were not in Chandigarh. The Cabinet, passing a resolution, appealed to the President, Prime Minister, and Punjab Governor not to administer the oath until the State’s position is considered, alleging that the Centre had bypassed Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing appointments of High Court Chief Justices.
The move has triggered an unusual constitutional confrontation over the role of the State Government in the appointment process. While the Mann Government maintained that Punjab’s views and consent were required before the appointment was finalised, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India Satya Pal Jain has rejected the State’s interpretation, saying that the State’s role is “to give its views and not exercise a veto”.
The dispute assumes added sensitivity as Justice Mishra, who has been functioning as Acting Chief Justice since June, has recently headed benches dealing with significant matters concerning the Punjab Government. His Bench recently ruled in the pending dearness allowance (DA) dispute, directing the State to release DA to employees, with the financial implication estimated at around Rs 14,100 crore. A Division Bench headed by Justice Mishra is also hearing a PIL linked to ED allegations concerning a multi-crore land-use case and alleged corruption involving persons claimed to be close to the Punjab Chief Minister’s Office (CMO).
The Cabinet’s resolution has now placed the scheduled Monday morning oath ceremony at the centre of the constitutional standoff, with the Punjab Government demanding that the ceremony itself be deferred until its position is duly considered.
Cabinet Cites Paragraph 6
The Cabinet resolution maintained that Paragraph 6 of the MoP requires the Union Law Minister to obtain the views of the concerned State Government after receiving the Collegium’s recommendation, following which the proposal moves to the Prime Minister and ultimately the President.
Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema said that communications from Punjab Governor dated August 12 and from Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal had themselves referred to Paragraph 6, yet Punjab’s views were not awaited before the appointment was notified.
Mann termed the move another instance of what he described as the Centre’s continuing interference in Punjab’s constitutional rights. He cited more than Rs 9,000 crore in Rural Development Fund (RDF) dues, the non-release of the Rs 1,600-crore flood relief package announced after the 2025 floods, and changes in Bhakra Beas Management Board rules as part of the broader context.
Cites Justice Sandhawalia’s Case
Cheema also questioned the Centre’s handling of the 2024 recommendation of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, then the senior-most judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, for appointment as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Collegium had recommended Justice Sandhawalia on July 11, 2024, but the proposal remained pending for more than two months before he was subsequently appointed Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court. Cheema contrasted that delay with the speed with which Justice Mishra’s appointment was processed.
Justice Mishra was transferred from the Allahabad High Court to Punjab and Haryana High Court in July 2025 and became Acting Chief Justice following the elevation of Justice Sheel Nagu to the Supreme Court.
Centre Contests Punjab’s Interpretation
ASG Jain said the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Mishra’s appointment on August 6 and that the views of Punjab and Haryana were sought on August 10. He said the Governors of both States conveyed their approval on August 12, while Haryana also communicated its views in favour of the proposal.
Punjab, he said, had sufficient time to respond but had not communicated its views when the appointment was notified.
Jain’s central argument is that consultation does not amount to consent. “The MoP requires the State’s views to be sought, but those views are not binding and cannot amount to a veto,” he said while cautioning against allowing governments to indefinitely hold up judicial appointments.
The dispute has consequently moved beyond Justice Mishra’s appointment itself. Punjab has framed it as a question of constitutional procedure, federalism, and the rights of an elected State Government, while the Centre’s defence rests on the distinction between obtaining the State’s views and requiring its consent.
