Punjab's Refusal to Attend Oath-Taking Ceremony Sparks Row Over Judicial Appointments

Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra took oath as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday, with an empty chair in the front row , reserved for Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann. A day earlier, in an unusual step, the Punjab Cabinet met and asked Governor Gulab Chand Kataria to hold off the oath-taking, arguing that the Centre had notified the appointment without the state’s consent. Punjab says that the Centre breached the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) that governs the appointment of judges, which requires the Centre to consult states before high court appointments. But that is not the end of this story. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Mishra and three other judges for appointment as chief justices of four high courts on August 6. The delay in Punjab’s response held up all four chief justice appointments. The Centre notified the appointment on September 5. Punjab is right to point out that the MoP fixes no deadline for a state’s response. But that flexibility is because judicial appointments are a consultative process. If the Mann government had reservations about Justice Mishra, it had weeks to put them on file, where they could be examined. It doesn’t help Punjab’s case that Justice Mishra’s court has lately been an uncomfortable place for the state government. As Acting Chief Justice, his bench pulled up Punjab in August for withholding dearness allowance dues even as it found ample money for advertising. His court also heard a Mohali case in which allegations were made against the Chief Minister’s wife, which the AAP has described as politically motivated. Earlier in Delhi, the AAP sought to have Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma taken off the appeal in the excise policy case in which party leaders are arraigned as accused. Treating adverse orders as a personal affront cannot become a template for political parties. Certainly, there is a case for bringing defined timelines into the MoP. The SC has set the Centre a benchmark for names reiterated by the Collegium — they must be cleared within three to four weeks. A comparable window for state responses — after which consent is deemed given — would remove the ambiguity this episode exposed. Governments at the Centre and in the states can disagree with each other. What none of them is entitled to do is to let political bickering hijack judicial appointments.