Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra today took oath as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, even as the Punjab Government’s opposition to his appointment cast a political shadow over the ceremony.
Punjab Governor Gulab Chand Kataria administered the oath to Justice Mishra at Lok Bhawan in Chandigarh. Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini attended the ceremony, along with judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, however, was conspicuous by his absence.
The oath-taking came a day after the Punjab Cabinet, at an emergency meeting, passed a resolution demanding that Justice Mishra’s appointment and administration of oath be kept on hold until the state government’s views were obtained and considered.
The AAP-led Punjab Government has accused the Centre of bypassing the state’s constitutional rights and the established procedure for appointing a Chief Justice. The Centre, however, has rejected the charge, maintaining that the prescribed Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) was followed and that a state government’s views are not binding.
The controversy has added a new layer to the already strained relationship between the Punjab Government and the Centre.
In its resolution, the Punjab Cabinet alleged that Justice Mishra was appointed without waiting for the state government’s views, as required under the procedure governing judicial appointments.
The Cabinet described the move as “yet another instance” of the Centre bypassing Punjab’s constitutional rights and established procedures.
Mann, in a post on X, said the appointment without obtaining the state government’s consent amounted to a violation of the prescribed procedure and constitutional norms. The Cabinet, he said, had therefore resolved that both the appointment and the administration of oath should be put on hold until Punjab’s views were sought and duly considered.
Timeline
The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Mishra for appointment as Chief Justice on August 6, along with other recommendations concerning Chief Justices of High Courts.
The Centre subsequently sought the views of the concerned state governments. While the Memorandum of Procedure does not prescribe a specific deadline for states to respond, the process for appointing a Chief Justice is generally expected to move with greater speed than appointments of other High Court judges.
According to the information cited by Jain, responses from Bihar, West Bengal and Maharashtra were received promptly, while the delay in Punjab contributed to the hold-up in the process. The appointments were eventually notified by the Union Law Ministry on September 5.
The notification, issued by the Appointments Division of the Department of Justice under the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, stated that the President was pleased to appoint Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, then a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as its Chief Justice with effect from the date he assumed office.
Justice Mishra had already been performing the duties of Acting Chief Justice. On June 1, the Centre had asked him to discharge the functions of Chief Justice following the elevation of Justice Sheel Nagu, the then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to the Supreme Court.
The dispute has also acquired a political edge because of a significant order passed by a bench headed by Justice Mishra in August.
The bench directed the Punjab Government to clear pending instalments of dearness allowance and dearness relief owed to government employees and pensioners. It questioned the state’s plea of financial constraints, noting that the government continued to spend money on advertisements and other discretionary expenditure while withholding dues claimed by employees and pensioners.
The order has since become an important backdrop to the political controversy surrounding Justice Mishra’s elevation.
The Punjab Government’s decision to oppose the appointment, however, has been framed by the AAP leadership as a question of constitutional procedure rather than a response to any particular judicial order.
Who is Justice Mishra?
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra enrolled as an advocate in 1993 and practised primarily in civil, constitutional and service law. He was designated a Senior Advocate in 2013 and appointed an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court in 2014. He became a permanent judge of the Allahabad High Court in 2016.
Justice Mishra served at the Allahabad High Court until July 20, 2025. He was subsequently transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and joined the Bench on July 21, 2025.
His elevation to the Chief Justice’s post now places him at the helm of a High Court whose jurisdiction covers two states—and at a time when relations between one of those states and the Union Government are already politically charged.
For now, the symbolism of Monday’s ceremony was hard to miss: Haryana’s Chief Minister was present, Punjab’s Chief Minister was absent, and the new Chief Justice took oath despite the Punjab Cabinet’s demand that the process be put on hold.
The legal appointment may have followed its constitutional course, but the political controversy surrounding it is unlikely to disappear with the oath.
Addl. Solicitor General’s take
Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, described the controversy as “extremely unfortunate and entirely unnecessary”. He said the appointment had been made by the President of India under Article 217(1) of the Constitution and followed the established Memorandum of Procedure.
Jain argued that the MoP requires the views of the concerned state government to be sought, but does not give the state a veto over the appointment.
“Except Punjab, all the state governments conveyed their views within a week, and all the appointments were made in time,” Jain said.
According to him, both Punjab and Haryana were informed of the proposal and their views were sought on August 10. The Governors of both states approved the proposal, while the Haryana Government conveyed its views in favour of the appointment on August 12 and 13.
Jain said Punjab had sufficient time—one or two weeks being a reasonable period—to communicate its views, but had not done so.
He maintained that the absence of the state government’s response could not indefinitely hold up a constitutional appointment.
“No one has the right to indefinitely hold up a proposal with the intention of obstructing the judicial process and politicising an issue that is essentially non-political,” Jain said.
