Punjab Government vs Centre over HC Chief Justice Appointment
The Punjab Cabinet on 6 September 2026 passed a resolution rejecting the Centre’s notification of Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The state argues that the appointment was made without its views, violating constitutional norms.
Key Developments
- Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann wrote separate letters to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking to postpone the oath.
- The oath ceremony scheduled for 7 September 2026 was attended by Haryana CM Nayab Singh Saini but not by Punjab’s CM.
- The state demands that its view be recorded before the oath is administered.
Important Constitutional Provisions
Under Article 217, the President appoints High Court judges after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Governor. The Governor, in turn, acts on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers as per Article 163. This creates a consultative, not a consent, role for the state.
The Supreme Court has clarified that "consultation" does not mean the state can veto the appointment. The judiciary retains primacy through the Collegium system. For High Court appointments, the Collegium includes the CJI and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges.
Judicial Precedents on Executive Role
- First Judges Case (1981): Interpreted "consultation" as non‑binding, giving the executive a larger role.
- Second Judges Case (1993): Shifted primacy to the judiciary, establishing the Collegium.
- Third Judges Case (1998): Defined the composition of the Collegium for Supreme Court and High Court appointments.
Attempted Reform – NJAC
In 2014, Parliament introduced the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act. The Supreme Court struck down both in 2015, citing the basic structure doctrine and the need to protect judicial independence.
Exam Relevance
This episode illustrates the balance of power between the Union and a state in judicial appointments, a frequent topic in GS Paper II (Polity). Understanding Governor’s function, the meaning of "consultation" versus "consent," and the evolution of the Collegium are essential for answering questions on judicial independence, federalism, and constitutional amendments.
Way Forward
- Both Centre and Punjab should engage in genuine consultation as mandated by Article 217.
- Any future reform of the appointment process must respect the basic structure doctrine to avoid constitutional challenges.
- UPSC aspirants should track similar centre‑state disputes to grasp practical applications of constitutional provisions.