The Punjab government has objected to the appointment of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that the Centre notified the appointment without waiting for the state government’s views and the issue has now turned into another Centre-state confrontation, with the Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab Cabinet passing a resolution asking that Justice Mishra’s appointment and oath-taking be kept on hold until Punjab’s views are formally considered.
But what exactly is the dispute? And does Punjab have the power to stop the appointment? Here is the issue explained in simple terms.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra was serving as the Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his appointment as the regular Chief Justice of the same High Court on August 6, 2026, and according to the Punjab government, it received a letter from Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal on August 12 seeking the state’s views on the appointment.
The Punjab Cabinet now claims that the state had not yet sent its response when the Union government notified Justice Mishra’s appointment as Chief Justice through a notification dated September 5.
Punjab says this amounted to bypassing the procedure laid down in the Memorandum of Procedure, commonly referred to as the MoP, governing the appointment and transfer of High Court judges and Chief Justices and the Cabinet has therefore appealed to the President, Prime Minister and Punjab Governor to keep the appointment and administration of oath on hold until the state’s views are obtained and considered.
The Punjab government is relying on Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum of Procedure.
According to the state Cabinet, once the Chief Justice of India recommends a candidate, the Union Law Minister is supposed to obtain the views of the concerned state government and after receiving those views, the proposal moves to the Prime Minister, who advises the President on the appointment.
Punjab argues that since it had been asked for its views but had not yet submitted them, the Centre should have waited before notifying the appointment.
The Cabinet also pointed out that the MoP does not prescribe a specific deadline within which the state or Governor must provide their views in such a case and the state therefore says there was no procedural justification for “hurrying” through the appointment before Punjab responded.
The material released by the Punjab government primarily sets out Punjab’s objections and it does not include a detailed fresh response from the Union government specifically defending the September 5 notification, however, the constitutional appointment process is not one in which a state government has the final power to approve or reject a High Court Chief Justice.
High Court judges and Chief Justices are appointed by the President of India, after the constitutional process involving the judiciary and Union government is followed, the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation is therefore a central part of the process.
Punjab’s argument is essentially about consultation and procedure, rather than claiming that the state itself has the constitutional power to make the final appointment. The dispute, therefore, is over whether the Centre should have waited for Punjab’s views before proceeding with the notification.
Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has linked the controversy to what he describes as a broader pattern of the Centre allegedly reducing Punjab’s constitutional and administrative space and in his statement, Mann referred to several other disputes between Punjab and the Union government.
He alleged that more than ₹9,000 crore in Rural Development Fund (RDF) dues has been withheld. He also alleged that Punjab has not received the ₹1,600-crore flood relief package announced by the Prime Minister after the 2025 floods.
Mann additionally referred to changes in the rules governing the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) and the Centre’s proposal concerning the administration of Panjab University and according to Mann, the appointment of the High Court Chief Justice is the latest example of what he calls interference in Punjab’s rights.
The Punjab Cabinet has consequently framed the issue not merely as a judicial appointment but as part of a wider Centre-state rights dispute.
The Cabinet has also cited the example of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and according to the Punjab government, in 2024 the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended Justice Sandhawalia, then a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, for appointment as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Punjab claims that the proposal was not notified for more than two months, during which the recommendation from the Madhya Pradesh government had apparently not been received.
The proposal was subsequently changed, and Justice Sandhawalia was recommended for the Himachal Pradesh High Court instead.
Punjab is using this example to argue that different standards appear to have been applied in different cases and the Cabinet says this has created a perception of unequal treatment when a judge from Punjab is involved in an appointment to another state, compared with the appointment of a judge from outside Punjab as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Mann has described the appointment as a violation of the prescribed procedure and constitutional norms, he said Punjab would not accept what he called continued interference by the Centre in the state’s affairs.
His argument is that if the MoP specifically requires the state government’s views to be sought, those views should be given due consideration before the appointment is finalised. Mann has therefore demanded that the appointment be kept on hold and that the prescribed process be followed.
Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Cheema also attacked the Centre over the issue.
Cheema alleged that the procedures governing the appointment had been ignored and accused the BJP-led Union government of using constitutional institutions for political purposes and he described the development as part of what he called the BJP’s political agenda in Punjab.
These are political allegations made by the Punjab government and have not been accompanied in the material provided by a detailed response from the Centre.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra has been serving as the Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for several months. His elevation as the regular Chief Justice would therefore formalise his position and the controversy also comes against the backdrop of a recent judgment involving the Punjab government.
A Bench headed by Justice Mishra last month delivered a judgment concerning the Dearness Allowance (DA) of Punjab government employees, directing the state government to release pending DA and the decision has been estimated by the Punjab government to create a financial burden of around ₹14,100 crore on the state and has triggered major protests by government employees.
The Punjab government had not given its assent to Justice Mishra’s appointment as regular Chief Justice before the notification was issued, however, the DA judgment and the Chief Justice appointment are separate legal matters. The fact that the same judge was involved in the DA case does not, by itself, establish a connection between that judgment and his appointment.
AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal had earlier raised objections after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Mishra for the post.
On August 9, Kejriwal alleged that seniority was being overlooked in the appointment process and the latest Cabinet resolution, however, focuses primarily on the alleged failure to wait for Punjab’s views under the MoP.
This is the key point.
Punjab is demanding that the appointment be put on hold, but the state government does not itself make the final appointment of a High Court Chief Justice and the appointment is ultimately made by the President under the constitutional framework, following the process involving the Supreme Court Collegium and the Union government.
Punjab’s objection is that its views were sought under the established procedure but the Centre proceeded without waiting for them, so the immediate question is not simply “Can Punjab reject Justice Mishra?” The more precise question is whether the Union government was required, under the applicable procedure, to wait for and consider Punjab’s views before notifying the appointment.
That is the procedural and constitutional question at the centre of the current dispute.
The Punjab Cabinet has formally asked the President, Prime Minister and Governor to stop the oath-taking until Punjab’s position is considered, and whether the Centre accepts this request, seeks Punjab’s views after the notification, or proceeds with the appointment will determine the next stage of the confrontation, but for now, Justice Mishra’s appointment has become another flashpoint in the increasingly contentious relationship between the Punjab government and the Union government.
