Punjab Cabinet Challenges Appointment of High Court Chief Justice, Demands Oath Delay

The Punjab government has formally challenged the Union government’s decision to appoint Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, calling for an immediate halt to his scheduled oath-taking ceremony. In an emergency cabinet meeting held via video conference on Sunday, September 6, 2026, the state government passed a resolution alleging that the Centre bypassed established constitutional norms and the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) by notifying the appointment without waiting for the state's formal input.

Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has escalated the dispute by writing directly to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The state government contends that while it received a request for its views from Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal on August 12, the Centre proceeded to notify the appointment on Saturday night, just over three weeks later. The government argues that the lack of a prescribed time limit in the MoP for state responses should have necessitated a more patient consultative process, characterizing the move as a direct assault on the state's constitutional rights.

The core of the Punjab government's objection rests on the interpretation of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for the appointment of High Court Chief Justices. According to the cabinet’s official statement, paragraph 6 of the MoP mandates that the Union Law Minister must obtain the views of the concerned state government following a recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium. The state government asserts that this consultation is not merely a formality but a substantive requirement that was ignored in this instance.

State officials highlighted a precedent involving the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where a proposal to appoint Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court remained pending for over two months while awaiting state government input. The Punjab cabinet argued that the current situation reflects a pattern of discriminatory treatment, where the Centre allegedly adheres to different standards when dealing with Punjab compared to other states. The government maintains that the appointment process should be suspended until its views are formally obtained and considered by the competent authority.

In response to the state's objections, sources within the Supreme Court Collegium stated that the Centre had followed standard practice. They noted that the Punjab government had been given ample time to provide its input, but had failed to do so, leading the Union government to proceed with the file. Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain echoed this sentiment, describing the controversy as "very unfortunate" and "completely unnecessary." Jain emphasized that the entire process was conducted in accordance with the MoP, noting that other states had submitted their views within a week of receiving the proposal.

Legal experts and former officials have also weighed in on the controversy, suggesting that the state's role in the appointment process is limited to consultation rather than concurrence. A retired high court judge noted that the Constitution does not grant the state a veto power over judicial appointments. Furthermore, some legal observers pointed out that if a state government fails to provide its views within a reasonable timeframe, the Centre is generally empowered to proceed with the appointment to avoid administrative paralysis within the judiciary.

The conflict has drawn sharp criticism from the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, which expressed concern over the executive's attempt to intervene in judicial appointments. The association warned that such actions could erode public confidence in the administration of justice and create an impression of political pressure on the judiciary. The bar body’s statement emphasized that the appointment of a Chief Justice is a matter governed by established constitutional mechanisms, and any attempt to politicize the process is detrimental to the institutional integrity of the court.

This friction occurs against a backdrop of existing legal tension between the state government and the judiciary. Justice Mishra, who has been serving as the Acting Chief Justice since June 2026, recently presided over a bench that directed the Punjab government to clear pending dearness allowance installments for employees and pensioners. The court’s order also restricted the state from engaging in large-scale advertising campaigns until these financial obligations were met, a directive that the state government has since challenged in the Supreme Court. This prior legal confrontation has fueled speculation regarding the political motivations behind the current cabinet resolution.

As the scheduled oath-taking ceremony approaches, the situation remains fluid with no clear resolution in sight. The Punjab government’s demand for a stay on the proceedings represents a significant escalation in the ongoing friction between the state administration and the central government. If the oath ceremony proceeds as planned, it could lead to further legal challenges or a deepening of the constitutional impasse between the state and the Union.

Unresolved questions remain regarding whether the Supreme Court or other constitutional authorities will intervene to clarify the scope of state consultation in judicial appointments. The incident underscores the fragility of the relationship between the executive and the judiciary when administrative and political interests intersect. Observers are now watching to see if the state government will pursue further litigation to block the appointment, or if the central government will maintain its position that the procedural requirements have been fully satisfied.