Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra’s appointment as the full-time chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court appears to have run into a fresh hurdle, with the Aam Aadmi Party-led Punjab government yet to convey its views on the Supreme Court collegium’s recommendation to the Centre more than a fortnight after it was forwarded to the state.
People aware of the matter said that the Union law ministry had sent the collegium’s recommendation to the Punjab government for its comments, but the state was yet to respond.
One of the persons cited above told HT that the Bhagwant Mann-government was understood to be “still gathering relevant inputs” on Justice Mishra and would share its views with the Centre after the exercise was completed.
The delay assumes significance as the recommendation now finds itself at the intersection of the judicial appointment process and a potentially sensitive political dynamic, with Punjab governed by the Aam Aadmi Party while the Union government is led by the BJP.
The Supreme Court collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, had on August 6 recommended Justice Mishra’s appointment as the full-time chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, along with three other full time chiefs for the Bombay, Calcutta and Patna high courts.
Justice Mishra has been functioning as the acting chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court since June 2, following the elevation of his predecessor, Justice Sheel Nagu, to the Supreme Court.
The collegium’s recommendation had itself triggered questions from former Delhi chief minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, who on August 9 questioned the elevation of Justice Mishra, alleging that his appointment involved “bypassing seniority”.
“It seems there is a tearing hurry to go to SC. Should judges be allowed SC elevation out of turn, bypassing seniority? That makes him vulnerable to quid pro quo,” Kejriwal said in a social media post. He went on to question what was examined before a judge was elevated to the Supreme Court and asked whether it was “loyalty to the emperor”.
“No out of turn, opaque elevation shud be permitted. Esp in such cases who throw law to the wind and go out of their way to please the executive. We should be careful of weaponisation of courts. Integrity of courts is most important for democracy to survive,” added the post.
Kejriwal’s public questioning of the recommendation came hours after the collegium’s recommendation was released and with Punjab yet to send its views, the appointment seems to have acquired an additional layer of scrutiny, and, potentially, a political dimension.
The collegium had, in its August 6 meeting, also recommended Justice V Kameswar Rao as chief justice of the Patna High Court, Justice Ravindra V Ghuge as chief justice of the Calcutta High Court and Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi as chief justice of the Bombay High Court.
Another person familiar with the developments said that the respective state governments had already conveyed their views on the other recommendations, with the Centre now awaiting Punjab’s response so that all four appointments could be processed and made simultaneously.
The collegium, for the time being, take a decision on full-time chiefs for the Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high courts.
Also Read:Allahabad HC orders probe into salary payment to life convict teacher out on bail in murder case
Under the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing the appointment of high court judges, after the Supreme Court collegium makes a recommendation for appointment of a high court chief justice, the Union law ministry obtains the views of the concerned state government before processing the proposal further. The state’s views are then sent onward as part of the process leading to the Prime Minister advising the President on the appointment.
The MoP also lays down a six-week period for a state government to convey its comments in the context of judicial appointments. It provides that if the comments are not received within that period, the Union law ministry may presume that the Governor, and in effect the chief minister, has nothing to add to the proposal and proceed accordingly. The six-week deemed-consent provision is expressly set out in the MoP governing appointments of high court judges.
There is, however, a question over whether that specific six-week provision applies in exactly the same manner to the appointment of chief justices of high courts. The provisions dealing specifically with the appointment of chief justices do not set out an equivalent timeline in paragraphs 2-7 of the MoP. This leaves it unclear whether a delay beyond six weeks in the case of Justice Mishra would automatically trigger the deemed-consent mechanism.
Justice Mishra, who belongs to the Allahabad High Court, was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in July 2025 and assumed charge as acting chief justice less than a year later.
