Additional SGI Satya Pal Jain calls Punjab Governments objection over Justice Ashwani Mishras appointment unfortunate and unnecessary
He said all required procedures and protocols were followed and there was no violation of any provision of law.
PTC News Desk: Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain has described the controversy over the Punjab government’s objection to the appointment of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as “very unfortunate” and completely unnecessary.
'Appointment followed all procedures'
Jain said the appointment was made by the President of India, the highest constitutional authority under Article 217(1) of the Constitution. He said there is a fixed procedure for the appointment of judges, known as the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), and the entire process was followed before Justice Mishra’s appointment.
He said all required procedures and protocols were followed and there was no violation of any provision of law.
Jain said that on August 6, 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended names for the appointment of Chief Justices of Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Punjab and Haryana in the first batch. In the second batch, recommendations were made for Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, and Madhya Pradesh.
The views of all concerned state governments were sought on these proposals.
He said that except Punjab, all the state governments submitted their views within a week, and the appointments were completed on time.
According to the MoP, both the Punjab and Haryana governments were informed about the proposal and their views were sought on August 10, 2026. The Governors of both Punjab and Haryana approved the proposal, while the Haryana government also submitted its views in favour of the proposal on August 12 and 13.
'Punjab Govt did not submit views on time'
Jain said the Punjab government had sufficient time—around one to two weeks—to submit its views. However, it has still not submitted its opinion.
He also said that the views of state governments are not binding. Only their opinions are required, and state governments do not have any “veto power” in such matters.
Jain said no one has the right to indefinitely delay such a proposal with the intention of obstructing the judicial process or turning a non-political issue into a political one.