Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann is set to break with a long-standing convention by staying away from Monday’s oath-taking ceremony of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as the new Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, turning a judicial appointment into the latest flashpoint in the increasingly bitter political confrontation between the Aam Aadmi Party government in Punjab and the BJP-led Union government.
Justice Mishra is scheduled to take oath at Punjab Lok Bhawan in Chandigarh on Monday morning, with Governor Gulab Chand Kataria administering the oath. Traditionally, the chief ministers of Punjab and Haryana attend the swearing-in of the Chief Justice of their common High Court. Mann’s decision to stay away is therefore being read not simply as a scheduling choice, but as a deliberate political signal against a process his government says ignored the state’s views.
The Punjab Cabinet, chaired by Mann at an emergency meeting on Sunday, passed a resolution demanding that Justice Mishra’s appointment and the administration of his oath be kept on hold until the state government’s views are obtained and considered.
The resolution came a day after the Union government formally notified Justice Mishra’s appointment following the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium. The Collegium had recommended him on August 6, while the Centre notified the appointment on September 5.
For Mann and the Punjab AAP leadership, the dispute is primarily about procedure, federalism and the role of an elected state government. They argue that the Centre moved ahead despite Punjab not having conveyed its response to the recommendation.
Mann has described the decision as another “assault” on Punjab’s rights and said that appointing the Chief Justice without obtaining the state government’s consent violated the prescribed procedure under the Memorandum of Procedure and constitutional norms. The Cabinet has separately urged the President, Prime Minister and Governor not to proceed with the oath until Punjab’s concerns are addressed.
But the Centre and its legal representatives strongly dispute that interpretation.
Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain has called Punjab’s reaction “most unfortunate and totally uncalled for”. According to Jain, the Punjab and Haryana governments were informed about the proposal and their views were sought on August 10. He said Haryana conveyed its views subsequently, while Punjab did not send its response within the period available to it.
Jain’s argument is that consultation does not amount to a state veto. He has maintained that the procedure prescribed by the Memorandum of Procedure was followed and that the views of state governments, even when sought, are not binding on the constitutional authorities responsible for judicial appointments.
That distinction lies at the heart of the confrontation.
Punjab’s position is that its constitutional and administrative interests cannot simply be bypassed when a Chief Justice is being appointed to the High Court serving the state. The opposing view is that High Court judicial appointments are governed by a constitutional process centred on the judiciary and the Union government, and that an elected state government does not possess a power of approval or veto.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association has also entered the debate, describing the Cabinet’s intervention as “executive overreach” and warning against creating a political shadow over the judiciary. Its position reflects a concern that disagreement with a judicial appointment should not become an attempt by the executive to influence judicial independence.
This has allowed the Opposition to turn the argument back on Mann.
Senior Congress leader Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa has questioned the AAP government’s stand, arguing that judges are not political appointees and that judicial independence cannot be made subject to the convenience of a ruling party. The Shiromani Akali Dal has also criticised Mann, warning that executive intervention in judicial appointments could undermine the separation of powers.
Why is Punjab AAP opposing Justice Mishra?
There is no public evidence that the Mann government has challenged Justice Mishra’s professional credentials. The objection is fundamentally to the manner and timing of his appointment.
Justice Mishra was transferred from the Allahabad High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in July 2025. Following the elevation of Justice Sheel Nagu to the Supreme Court, he became Acting Chief Justice of the High Court in June 2026. The Collegium subsequently recommended him as the full-time Chief Justice.
His judicial career stretches back more than three decades. He enrolled as an advocate in 1993, was designated a Senior Advocate in 2013 and became an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court in 2014 before being appointed a permanent judge in 2016.
The political controversy is therefore less about who Justice Mishra is and more about who, according to Punjab AAP, should have been consulted before his elevation.
There is, however, another layer to the dispute.
Justice Mishra has presided over important cases involving the Punjab government. One recent judgment concerning the payment of dearness allowance to state employees reportedly placed a substantial financial burden on the already cash-strapped Punjab government. The judgment has become a point of political discussion, with critics suggesting that the government’s confrontation with the judiciary comes at a sensitive moment. The Punjab government, however, has not officially cited that judgment as the reason for opposing his appointment.
The Bar and Opposition parties have seized upon precisely this background to question the government’s motives. They argue that judicial appointments cannot become controversial merely because a court has delivered judgments that are inconvenient for the executive.
For Mann, however, the controversy fits into a much larger political narrative.
Over the past several months, the Punjab government has repeatedly accused the Centre of encroaching upon the state’s rights. Issues including Rural Development Funds, the Bhakra Beas Management Board, Punjab’s institutional interests, financial disputes and the activities of central investigative agencies have already produced a series of Centre-Punjab confrontations.
The Chief Justice controversy has now added the judiciary to that list.
Mann has sought to present the issue as one concerning Punjab’s constitutional position rather than the personal appointment of one judge. His argument is that an elected government cannot be treated as irrelevant in matters that have a direct bearing on the state.
The decision to skip Monday’s ceremony strengthens that political message.
Rather than standing alongside the Governor and Haryana’s political leadership at the oath-taking, Mann is expected to travel towards Delhi and Gurugram to meet jailed former Punjab minister and AAP leader Sanjeev Arora.
That meeting has its own political significance.
Sanjeev Arora was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in May in a money-laundering case linked to alleged irregularities involving mobile-phone exports, GST refunds and related transactions. He remains in judicial custody in Gurugram, and his latest bail hearing was adjourned until September 17. The allegations against him remain matters for the legal process, and Arora has challenged the action against him.
Mann and AAP have portrayed Arora’s arrest as part of what they see as a wider pattern of central agencies being used against political opponents. The Chief Minister’s decision to meet him on the same day that he is absent from the High Court Chief Justice’s oath ceremony therefore carries a double political message: solidarity with an AAP leader facing a central investigation, and protest against what the Punjab government sees as unilateral action by the Centre.
It is also significant that Aman Arora should not be confused with Sanjeev Arora in this context. Aman Arora, the Punjab AAP president, remains active in the state government and has recently been publicly speaking on issues involving the ED and the Centre. Sanjeev Arora is the leader currently in judicial custody.
What happens next?
The immediate confrontation is unlikely to end with Monday’s oath. Unless the Centre reverses course, Justice Mishra is expected to assume office despite Punjab’s objection.
That could leave the dispute moving into the constitutional and legal arena, where the central question will be whether the consultation process was properly followed and what legal weight should be attached to the state government’s objections.
For the AAP government, the political calculation is equally important. With the 2027 Punjab Assembly election approaching, Mann has increasingly positioned himself as the defender of the state’s interests against what he describes as an over-centralised BJP government.
The Justice Mishra appointment gives that campaign another powerful political theme: federalism.
For the BJP and its supporters, the opposite argument is likely to dominate — that judicial appointments cannot be treated as political negotiations between the Centre and a state government, and that executive attempts to influence them could threaten judicial independence.
The dispute, therefore, is bigger than the oath-taking ceremony of one Chief Justice.
It has become a test of competing interpretations of federalism, judicial independence and constitutional procedure — and, in Punjab’s increasingly charged political environment, another battle in the larger struggle between the AAP government in Chandigarh and the BJP-led government in New Delhi.
Mann’s absence from the ceremony is likely to make that message impossible to miss.
