Punjab stand on judge sets disturbing precedent

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.

Overall Analysis

The editorial examines the Punjab Government’s objection to the appointment of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and argues that the state’s approach could create a disturbing precedent for judicial appointments and institutional independence.

The opening image of “an empty chair in the front row” is a powerful journalistic device. Instead of beginning with a legal explanation, the writer starts with a symbolic visual — the Chief Minister’s absence from the oath-taking ceremony. This immediately establishes tension between the state government and the judiciary. The phrase “unusual step” further signals that Punjab’s action is outside the normal course of events.

The first paragraph presents Punjab’s argument fairly: the state claims that the Centre notified the appointment without obtaining its consent and allegedly breached the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). The writer uses phrases such as “Punjab says” and “which requires” to explain the legal position before moving towards criticism. This gives the editorial an initially balanced and factual character.

The second paragraph becomes more analytical. The author points out that the Collegium had recommended four appointments and that Punjab’s delayed response held up all four. The phrase “Punjab is right to point out” is important because the writer explicitly acknowledges a valid aspect of the state’s argument. However, the sentence that follows introduces the counterargument: the absence of a fixed deadline does not mean that the state can indefinitely delay the consultative process. The phrase “that flexibility is because judicial appointments are a consultative process” explains why procedural flexibility exists.

The author then uses a hypothetical argument: “If the Mann government had reservations about Justice Mishra, it had weeks to put them on file.” This is a logical way of challenging the government’s conduct. The implication is that legitimate objections should have been formally communicated through the established process rather than raised at the last moment.

The final section introduces another layer — the recent friction between Justice Mishra’s court and the Punjab Government. References to the court “pulling up Punjab” and hearing a politically sensitive case suggest a possible conflict of interest or appearance of political motivation. The phrase “It doesn’t help Punjab’s case” is understated but critical. Rather than directly accusing the government of retaliatory behaviour, the writer presents circumstances that make the government’s position appear less convincing.

From a language perspective, the editorial relies heavily on contrast, understatement, conditional reasoning and institutional vocabulary. It carefully separates the legitimate procedural question from the larger concern about judicial independence. The argument progresses from symbolic incident → constitutional procedure → delay → possible political context → concern about precedent.

Important Vocabulary – 5

1. Precedent – an earlier action or decision that may serve as an example for future cases.
2. Consultative – involving discussion and consideration of the views of different parties before a decision is made.
3. Breach – a violation or failure to follow a law, agreement or obligation.
4. Reservations – doubts, objections or concerns about something.
5. Withhold – to refuse to give, provide or release something that is expected or due.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial suggests that while Punjab may legitimately question aspects of the judicial appointment procedure, delaying the appointment and seeking to stop the oath-taking creates a troubling institutional precedent. The writer appears particularly concerned that disagreements between governments and courts should not spill over into the process of judicial appointments.

Tone: Critical, analytical, constitutional and cautionary.

Key language takeaway: The editorial demonstrates measured criticism. Instead of making a direct accusation, the writer acknowledges the opposing side’s valid point and then uses facts, chronology and carefully chosen language to undermine its overall position. This is a useful style for UPSC essays and analytical answers, where balanced criticism is more effective than emotional assertion.