Punjab asks Centre to hold High Court Chief Justice appointment, citing MoP breach
The Constitution says the Governor must be consulted. Does that give a State a say in who heads its High Court?
Published 7 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Punjab Cabinet has passed a resolution asking the Centre to put on hold the appointment of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Indian Express reported on 7 September 2026. The State says the Centre went ahead without obtaining its views, in violation of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the executive document that sets out the steps for appointing High Court judges. Justice Mishra had been the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court since June 2026. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended him on 6 August and the Centre notified the appointment on 5 September. Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann wrote to the President, the Prime Minister and the Punjab Governor, enclosing the Cabinet resolution.
According to the report, the MoP conventionally requires the Centre to seek the State government's views, but it lays down no time limit for them. Mann also linked the episode to other disputes with the Centre, including over the Rural Development Fund and changes to the rules of the Bhakra Beas Management Board. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association opposed the State's stand and cautioned against executive interference in judicial appointments. A separate Indian Express report noted that the appointment was one of eight recent Chief Justice appointments, seven of them made on the Collegium's recommendations of 6 and 31 August and one separately for Chhattisgarh, after which all 25 High Courts have regular Chief Justices.
The constitutional frame is Article 217: a High Court judge is appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the Governor of the State and, for judges other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of that High Court. Since the Punjab and Haryana High Court is a common High Court for Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Article 231 reads the reference to the Governor as the Governors of all the States concerned. After the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases, a High Court Chief Justice is recommended by a collegium of the CJI and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges, and the State's role is consultative. Punjab's case is that consultation has meaning only if the State is actually heard. The Bar Association sees the demand as executive overreach. The MoP itself follows a policy of appointing Chief Justices from outside their own State, which is meant to keep local influence away from the office.
Prelims facts
- Article 217(1) requires the President to consult the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State before appointing a High Court judge, and also the High Court's Chief Justice for judges other than the Chief Justice.
- For a common High Court, Article 231 makes the reference to the Governor in Article 217 mean the Governors of all the States over which the court has jurisdiction.
- Under the collegium system, a High Court Chief Justice is recommended by the CJI and the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, and the MoP's policy is to appoint Chief Justices from outside the State.
- Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice since June 2026, was recommended on 6 August and notified as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 5 September 2026.
- Article 223 lets the President appoint an Acting Chief Justice when the office of Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant.
Quick recall
- Which Article provides for the appointment of High Court judges?
- Article 217.
- Whom must the President consult before appointing a High Court Chief Justice?
- The Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State (Article 217(1)).
- Which Article allows a common High Court for two or more States?
- Article 231.
- Which Article provides for an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court?
- Article 223.
- Retirement age of a High Court judge?
- 62 years.
- Who forms the collegium for High Court appointments?
- The CJI and the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
- Which case gave primacy to the judiciary in appointments?
- The Second Judges Case (1993).
- Which territories does the Punjab and Haryana High Court serve?
- Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Prelims practice question
Under Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, the President must consult which of the following before appointing the Chief Justice of a High Court?
1. The Chief Justice of India
2. The Governor of the State
3. The Chief Justice of that High Court
4. The Chief Minister of the State
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
- 1 and 2 only
- 1, 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 4 only
- 1, 2, 3 and 4
Show answer
Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only. Article 217(1) names the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State for every High Court judge, and adds the Chief Justice of the High Court only for judges other than the Chief Justice. The Chief Minister is not named in the Constitution; the State government's views are sought under the Memorandum of Procedure, and the Governor acts on the advice of the State Council of Ministers.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Appointment of judges to the higher judiciary: the collegium, the executive's role and judicial independence.
- How to use this
Use the Punjab dispute as a current example of how the collegium system works for High Court Chief Justices and where the executive and States fit.
- After the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases, a High Court Chief Justice is recommended by a collegium of the CJI and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges.
- Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra was recommended on 6 August and notified on 5 September 2026; Punjab's Cabinet sought a hold, saying its views were not obtained under the MoP.
- Article 217 requires consultation with the CJI and Governor; the MoP asks for State views but sets no time limit, and follows a policy of appointing Chief Justices from outside the State.
- How to use this
Use the Punjab episode to show that, with the collegium in place, gaps in the Memorandum of Procedure still cause friction, and to propose MoP reform.
- Under the collegium, primacy rests with the judiciary's opinion, and the State's role in High Court appointments is only consultative.
- Punjab says the Centre notified its High Court Chief Justice without its views, because the MoP sets no time limit for them; the Bar Association called the demand executive interference.
- Reform the MoP: fix timelines for State views, after which the file proceeds, and record reasons when State objections are overruled.
Mains practice question
The Constitution requires the Governor to be consulted in the appointment of High Court judges, yet the collegium system has made the State's role marginal. Critically examine in the light of recent friction over judicial appointments. (250 words)
Model answer
Article 217 requires the President to consult the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Governor before appointing a High Court judge. Punjab's demand in September 2026 that the Chief Justice appointment to the Punjab and Haryana High Court be put on hold, because its views were not obtained, revives the question of the State's role.
Why the State's role has shrunk
- The Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases gave primacy to the judiciary's opinion, exercised through the collegium.
- A High Court Chief Justice is recommended by the CJI and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges; the Governor acts on the State government's advice and is only consulted.
- The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) asks the Centre to seek the State's views but sets no time limit, so the process can move on without them.
Why the State's role still matters
- Article 231 requires consultation with every State served by a common High Court, a sign that the Constitution wants every State concerned to be heard.
- Effective consultation builds trust; its absence feeds Centre-State friction.
Concerns about the State's demand
- A State veto would expose judicial appointments to political bargaining and threaten judicial independence.
- The Bar Association has warned against executive interference.
Way forward
- A revised MoP with fixed timelines for the State's views, after which the file proceeds.
- Recorded reasons when State objections are overruled.
The State's voice should be heard in time, but it cannot become a veto over judicial appointments.
The basics
Why this matters
Who gets a say in appointing High Court judges? The Constitution gives the executive a role, including the State through its Governor, but Supreme Court judgments have moved the real decision to judges. Punjab's objection to the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in September 2026 shows the gap between the text and the practice. To follow the debate, you need the basics of Article 217 and High Court appointments, The Judges Cases, which built the collegium, and the Memorandum of Procedure that runs the process.
What the Constitution says
Article 217(1) says the President appoints a High Court judge after consulting the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and, for judges other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court. Some High Courts serve more than one State or Union Territory; for them Article 231 makes 'the Governor' mean the Governors of all the States concerned. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, for example, serves Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, which is why it is a Common High Courts under Article 231.
- President appoints
- Consults the Chief Justice of India
- Consults the Governor of the State
- Collegium of the CJI and two senior-most judges recommends
- Judiciary's opinion has primacy
- State's views sought under the MoP, with no time limit
How the collegium came to decide
In the First Judges Case (1981), the Supreme Court held that 'consultation' did not mean 'concurrence', which left the executive with the final say. The Second Judges Case (1993) reversed this and gave primacy to the opinion of the CJI, formed with senior colleagues. The Third Judges Case (1998) fixed the collegium's size. In 2015 the Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission, so the collegium continues.
- 1981First Judges Case: consultation does not mean concurrence
- 1993Second Judges Case: primacy to the CJI and senior judges
- 1998Third Judges Case: collegium composition settled
- 2015Supreme Court strikes down the NJAC
- 2026Punjab objects that its views were not taken on a Chief Justice appointment
How a Chief Justice is appointed today
The steps are set out in the MoP, an executive document, not a law.
- 1VacancyAn Acting Chief Justice may be appointed under Article 223 until a regular one is appointed
- 2Collegium recommendsThe CJI and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges choose a judge, usually from another High Court
- 3Views of the StateThe Union Law Ministry seeks the State government's views; the MoP fixes no deadline
- 4Warrant and notificationThe President signs the warrant and the Centre notifies the appointment
The tension
The State's role is real in the text but thin in practice. A revised MoP with timelines would let the State be heard without holding a veto.
Go deeper
In one line: Punjab says the Centre appointed the Chief Justice of its High Court without taking the State's views, and wants the appointment put on hold.
Why it matters for UPSC
Appointment of judges is a staple of GS2, both for Prelims (Articles 217, 223, 231) and for Mains questions on the collegium, judicial independence and federalism. This episode adds a fresh angle: the State's place in a process now led by the judiciary.
The core idea
Under Article 217 and High Court appointments, the President consults the Chief Justice of India and the Governor. Since the The Judges Cases, a collegium of judges decides, and the government's role, including the State's, is consultative. The steps, including seeking the State's views, sit in the Memorandum of Procedure, which fixes no time limit. Because the Punjab and Haryana High Court is one of the Common High Courts under Article 231, both Punjab and Haryana have a consultative role. Punjab's complaint is that its views were never obtained.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 6 August 2026: Collegium recommends Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra.
- 5 September 2026: Centre notifies the appointment.
- June 2026: Justice Mishra becomes Acting Chief Justice.
- 25 High Courts, all with regular Chief Justices after the latest round.
- 1981, 1993, 1998: the three Judges Cases; 2015: NJAC struck down.
Where to go next
- Article 217 and High Court appointments: what the Constitution actually requires.
- The Judges Cases: how judges came to choose judges.
- Memorandum of Procedure: the rulebook for the steps and its gaps.
- Common High Courts under Article 231: why one court answers to two States.
Go deeper: consultation, veto or formality?
The word at the centre of this dispute is 'consultation'. In the First Judges Case (1981) the Supreme Court read it as consultation, not concurrence, which left the executive free to disagree. In the Second Judges Case (1993) the Court held that the CJI's opinion, formed with senior colleagues, has primacy. The effect was to turn the executive's role, at the Centre and in the States, into one of giving inputs. See The Judges Cases.
The case for Punjab. Article 217 names the Governor, who acts on the State's advice, so the framers intended the State to be heard. The Memorandum of Procedure says the State's views will be sought. If a file can proceed without them, the State's constitutional role becomes empty. For a common High Court, Common High Courts under Article 231 requires every State concerned to be consulted.
The case against. Consultation is not a veto. A State that could hold up an appointment could bargain over judges, which would damage the independence that the Judges Cases were meant to protect. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association has cautioned against executive interference in appointments. The policy of appointing Chief Justices from outside the State is meant to shield the office from local pressures.
The practical gap. The MoP fixes no deadline for the State's views. A revised MoP has been under discussion since the NJAC judgment of 2015 asked for one. A time-bound window for States, after which the process moves on with reasons recorded, would answer both sides. Read Article 217 and High Court appointments for the text itself.
Article 217 and High Court appointments
The constitutional text on who appoints High Court judges and who must be consulted.
In one line: Article 217 says the President appoints High Court judges after consulting the Chief Justice of India, the Governor and, for puisne judges, the High Court's Chief Justice.
What the Article says
Article 216 says each High Court has a Chief Justice and other judges. Article 217(1) sets out the appointment: by the President, by warrant under his hand and seal, after consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the State and, for a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court. Judges serve until 62. Article 217(2) lists qualifications: an Indian citizen who has held judicial office for ten years or been an advocate of a High Court for ten years.
Related Articles
Article 223 lets the President appoint an Acting Chief Justice when the office is vacant. Article 222 deals with transfers of judges between High Courts.
Why it is in the news
Punjab argues that the consultative role the Article gives the State, through the Governor, was bypassed.
Where to go next
The Judges Cases
How three Supreme Court judgments moved the power of appointment to the collegium.
In one line: Three Supreme Court cases (1981, 1993, 1998) decided who has the final word on appointing judges, and built the collegium system.
The three cases
The First Judges Case, S.P. Gupta (1981), held that 'consultation' with the CJI did not mean his concurrence, giving the executive primacy. The Second Judges Case, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (1993), overruled it and gave primacy to the CJI's opinion formed with senior colleagues. The Third Judges Case (1998), on a Presidential reference, settled that the CJI must consult a collegium: four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments, and two for High Court appointments.
After 2015
Parliament's attempt to replace the collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (99th Amendment, 2014) was struck down in 2015 as violating judicial independence, a part of the basic structure. The collegium continues.
Where to go next
Memorandum of Procedure
The executive rulebook for the steps of appointment, and the gap Punjab is pointing to.
In one line: The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) is an agreed executive document that lays down, step by step, how judges of the higher judiciary are appointed.
What it does
The MoP was drawn up after the Second Judges Case to put the collegium's role into a working procedure. For a High Court Chief Justice, the proposal is initiated by the CJI with the two senior-most Supreme Court judges. The Union Law Ministry seeks the views of the State government, then the file goes to the Prime Minister, who advises the President. As a policy, Chief Justices are appointed from outside their own State.
Its gaps
The MoP is not a law, and, as the Punjab episode shows, it sets no time limit for the State's views. After striking down the NJAC in 2015, the Supreme Court asked the government and the judiciary to revise the MoP, but the revision has long been pending.
Where to go next
Memorandum of Procedure: every story that connects to it (2)
Common High Courts under Article 231
Why the Punjab and Haryana High Court needs the voice of more than one State.
In one line: Article 231 lets Parliament set up one High Court for two or more States, or for States and a Union Territory, and adjusts the appointment rules accordingly.
How it works
Article 214 says each State shall have a High Court, but Article 231 allows Parliament to establish a common High Court. For such a court, Article 231(2) reads the reference to 'the Governor' in Article 217 as a reference to the Governors of all the States over which the court has jurisdiction. So both States must be consulted.
Examples
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh serves Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Gauhati High Court serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The Bombay High Court also covers Goa and the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
Why it is in the news
Punjab's objection is that its own voice, one of the two States served by the court, was not taken.
Where to go next
Take the 7 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers