Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema has strongly objected to the appointment of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. His objection stems from the fact that the appointment was made without any consultation with the Punjab Government.
Punjab Government Excluded from Chief Justice Appointment Process
Cheema said the manner in which the appointment was made raised serious questions about the Centre's respect for Punjab's constitutional rights and the federal structure of the country. He pointed out that the Punjab Government had not been given an opportunity to present its views before the appointment was finalised.
"The manner in which this appointment has been made raises serious questions about the Centre's respect for Punjab's constitutional rights and the federal structure of the country. The Punjab Government was not given an opportunity to present its views before the appointment was finalised." — Harpal Singh Cheema, Punjab Finance Minister
Federal Structure Concerns in High Court Chief Justice Selection
The minister's statement highlights a growing tension between the state and the Centre over the process of judicial appointments. By skipping consultation with the Punjab Government, the Centre has, in Cheema's view, undermined the principles of cooperative federalism that guide such decisions.
This is not just about one appointment. It is about whether states have a meaningful voice in decisions that directly affect their judicial administration. The Punjab and Haryana High Court serves both states, yet only one government appears to have been consulted in this process.
Our Take: Consultation is Not Optional in Chief Justice Appointments
To put it plainly, Cheema has a legitimate point. When a high court serves multiple states, ignoring one of those state governments in the appointment of its chief justice is a procedural failure. The federal structure exists precisely to ensure that states are not sidelined in matters that concern them.
The Centre must clarify why the Punjab Government was bypassed. If there is a valid reason, it should be stated openly. If not, this sets a worrying precedent for future judicial appointments. States are not mere spectators in the governance of their own courts — they are partners. Treating them otherwise invites exactly the kind of friction we are seeing now.
This controversy also raises a broader question for readers: how much say should state governments have in central appointments that affect them? The answer, as this incident shows, matters far more than the paperwork suggests.