State consent not taken, put High Court Chief Justice appointment on hold: Punjab Government

“This appointment has been made without obtaining the consent of the state government, thereby bypassing all Constitutional norms and set procedures,” it said in a statement. “The Cabinet resolved that the appointment and administration of oath should be put on hold until Punjab’s views are obtained and duly considered,” it said.

Justice Mishra, whose parent court is the Allahabad High Court, is expected to be sworn in on Monday.

“Today, the Punjab Cabinet unanimously passed an important resolution against the continued assault on Punjab’s rights by the Central Government and the violation of constitutional norms. Appointing the new Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court without obtaining the consent of the State Government is a direct violation of the prescribed procedures (Memorandum of Procedure) and constitutional norms,” Mann said on X.

He later wrote to President Droupadi Murmu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Punjab Governor Gulab Chand Kataria, enclosing a copy of the resolution adopted by the Cabinet.

The SC Collegium had recommended the appointment of four Chief Justices of High Courts, including Justice Mishra’s candidature, on August 6. On August 12, the Centre had sought the views of the Chief Ministers and Governors of the four states.

While the MoP does not stipulate a time period, conventionally, it is learnt that the consent for appointment of a Chief Justice is dealt with immediately. For appointment of HC Judges, it takes four to six weeks for inputs from the Chief Minister. It is learnt that normally, the Secretary of the Department of Justice dials the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister to facilitate the process. After a certain time period, the Law Ministry deems that there was no objection from the state government.

It is learnt that the Law Ministry had received inputs from Bihar, West Bengal and Maharashtra — the three other states concerned — immediately, but the delay by the Punjab Chief Minister held up the other appointments too. The appointments were notified on September 5.

Justice Mishra has been serving as Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court since June 1, when he took over following the elevation of then Chief Justice Sheel Nagu to the Supreme Court.

The Punjab Cabinet said the appointment reflected a pattern of the Centre’s “infringement of Punjab’s constitutional rights”. In his post on X, Mann linked the issue to a series of other disputes between Punjab and the Centre. “The Centre withholding our Rs 9,000 crore RDF (Rural Development Fund) funds and flood relief package, changing the BBMB (Bhakra Beas Management Board) rules, and now directly interfering in judicial appointments will not be tolerated. We demand that this appointment be immediately put on hold and that, in accordance with the constitutional process, the views of the State be accorded due respect. Inquilab Zindabad,” he said.

The Cabinet also cited the case of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, a former Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge who was recommended by the Collegium in 2024 for appointment as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. That proposal remained unnotified for over two months in the absence of a recommendation from the Madhya Pradesh government, after which Justice Sandhawalia was instead appointed Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The Punjab government said the contrast between the two cases had created a “feeling of perceived discrimination” in the way appointments involving Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are handled.

As Acting CJ, a bench led by Justice Mishra had in August directed the Punjab government to clear pending instalments of dearness allowance and dearness relief owed to its employees and pensioners, observing that the state continued to spend on advertisements and other discretionary items even as it cited financial constraints to withhold the dues.

Meanwhile, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association has opposed the state government’s stand. It said the move risked being seen as Executive overreach into a matter governed by the constitutional process for judicial appointments, cautioning that any impression of political pressure on the judiciary could erode public confidence in the justice system.