Punjab And Haryana High Court Dismisses PIL Against Judge's Appointment, Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost [Read Order]

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed with costs a Public Interest Litigation petition seeking to stall the appointment of an Advocate to the Bench of the High Court, holding that the petition had been filed to settle a personal score and was not instituted in genuine public interest.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor was hearing the PIL filed by Pradeep Singh, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to keep in abeyance the recommendations made by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and to recall the recommendation for appointment of private respondent No.8, Pravindra Chauhan, as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner also sought a direction restraining the High Court from administering the oath of office to respondent No.8.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, contending that it had been filed as an act of vengeance against respondent No.8. It was pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed a PIL seeking a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of respondent No.8 as Advocate General, Haryana, which was dismissed by the High Court on 21.01.2026, and that in the course of that litigation the petitioner had made allegations of harassment against respondent No.8 relating to his tenure as an employee of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, where respondent No.8 had at the time been a Judicial Member. It was submitted that the petitioner had since been discharged from service pursuant to proceedings initiated against him, and that the present petition was a continuation of that personal grievance.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that a citizen was entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court to discipline the exercise of public power, and relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India and State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal to contend that judicial review could extend to examining mala fide exercise of power in matters of public appointment.

The Court explained that the process for appointment of a High Court Judge is an exhaustive, multi-tiered exercise, beginning with a recommendation by the Collegium of the High Court comprising the Chief Justice and two senior Judges, followed by inputs from intelligence agencies and a recommendation of the State Government, before the proposal reaches the Ministry of Law and Justice and, ultimately, the Collegium of the Supreme Court comprising the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most Judges. It held that such a process could not ordinarily be questioned at the instance of a litigant approaching the Court with a personal grievance.

Relying on the Supreme Court's guidelines in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal for curbing PIL petitions filed for extraneous considerations, the Bench observed that 

a PIL petition would not be entertained at the instance of a person who has approached the Court with an intent to settle his personal scores.

The Court held that the petitioner's successive PIL petitions against respondent No.8, first seeking quo warranto and now seeking to obstruct his appointment as a Judge, reflected a personal grudge rather than a genuine public grievance, and that such attempts required to be thwarted at the outset. The Bench also held that the precedents cited by the petitioner had no applicability to the facts of the case, and expressed disapproval of the practice of citing a judgment's head note published on Indian Kanoon rather than the text of the judgment itself.

Holding that the petition was not instituted in genuine public interest, the Court dismissed it with costs of Rs.1,00,000 to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, with pending applications, if any, disposed of accordingly.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 & 2-Union of India: Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, with Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent No.4-High Court: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Mr. Avichal Sharma, and Mr. Adhiraj Sood, Advocates.

For the State of Punjab: Mr. Maninder Singh Garcha, Senior Advocate, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Ms. Samdisha Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

Case Title: Pradeep Singh v. Union of India and Others, CWP-PIL-212-2026 (O&M)

[Read Order]