The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that contested the Supreme Court Collegium’s decision to recommend Senior Advocate Pravindra Singh Chauhan for appointment as a High Court judge. This legal action, titled Pradeep Singh v Union of India and Others, questioned the elevation of Chauhan, who currently serves as the Advocate General of Haryana. The recommendation to appoint him, along with nine other advocates, was made in May, yet awaits approval from the Central government.
On August 10, a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor rejected the plea, which sought to revoke the Collegium’s recommendation concerning Chauhan. The Bench underscored the comprehensive nature of the judicial appointment process, highlighting that such recommendations are not typically subject to judicial review. They emphasized that appointments to high constitutional offices cannot be scrutinized merely at the behest of individual petitioners.
Judicial Appointment Process
The Court elucidated the multi-step procedure involved in appointing a High Court judge. Initially, the High Court Collegium initiates the process by forwarding a proposal to the State government. This proposal undergoes scrutiny, including intelligence inputs, before being submitted to the Ministry of Law and Justice. Here, further intelligence assessments are conducted before the matter is presented to the Supreme Court Collegium, which includes the Chief Justice of India and two senior Supreme Court judges.
Additionally, the Court referred to a prior plea by petitioner Pradeep Singh, which contested Chauhan’s appointment as the Advocate General of Haryana. This earlier plea was dismissed on January 21, underscoring a pattern of grievances against Chauhan, according to the Court.
Petitioner’s Background and Court’s Stand
The Bench noted that Pradeep Singh, a former employee of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, had previously faced departmental proceedings resulting in his dismissal from service—Chauhan served as a judicial member of the commission during that time. The Court inferred that Singh’s PIL might be driven by personal vendettas against Chauhan.
More Read
The Bench firmly stated that a PIL should serve as a mechanism for addressing genuine public grievances and cannot be misused for extraneous motives by individuals seeking personal gains. The Court emphasized that successive petitions aimed at Chauhan by Singh would not be entertained, and such actions should be deterred from the onset.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea, imposing a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner. This amount is to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh. Legal representation for the petitioner was provided by Advocate Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, while Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain and Advocate Saigeeta Srivastava represented the Union of India. Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, along with Advocates Ranjit Singh Kalra, Avichal Sharma, and Adhiraj Sood, represented the High Court. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh Garcha, Additional Advocate General of Punjab, and Assistant Advocate General Samdisha Kaur represented the State of Punjab.
[Read Judgment]
