The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) with a cost of ₹1 lakh that demanded recall of recommendation to appoint Pravindra Chauhan, advocate general Haryana, as high court judge.
“The process (of appointment of a judge) itself is exhaustive, and it would not be open to ordinarily question the recommendations made therein, particularly when the challenge is laid by a person who approaches the court with a personal axe to grind,” the bench of acting chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor observed while dismissing the plea.
Chauhan was appointed top law officer of the state in December 2025. Upon recommendation from the high court collegium, in May the Supreme Court (SC) collegium had recommended his name for the appointment alongwith 9 others to the Centre. However, the matter is still under consideration of the Central government.
The PIL was from Pradeep Singh, seeking directions from high court to Centre to keep in abeyance the recommendations made by the Punjab and Haryana high court as well as by Supreme Court of Chauhan’s appointment. It further demanded to recall the recommendation by high court collegium to appoint Chauhan as judge.
The court observed that where the challenge is laid to the appointment to a high constitutional office, the exercise of jurisdiction of a court must be based on appreciation of facts which have been placed on record. “It cannot be at the mere asking of the petitioner that the process of such appointment needs to be questioned or examined by this court,” it said noting that the process of appointment of a high court judge is initiated by the collegium of the high court, consisting of the chief justice and two senior judges, whereafter the proposal is sent to the state government where various inputs are provided by intelligence agencies. Thereafter, recommendation is made by the state government in the matter. The proposal is then taken to the ministry of law and justice, where once again, intelligence inputs are collected and with the appropriate reports, obtained from all relevant quarters, the matter is placed before the Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and two senior-most judges of the apex court.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that where the challenge is laid to the appointment to a high constitutional office, the exercise of jurisdiction of a court must be based on appreciation of facts which have been placed on record. “It cannot be at the mere asking of the petitioner that the process of such appointment needs to be questioned or examined by this court,” it said noting that the process of appointment of a high court judge is initiated by the collegium of the high court, consisting of the chief justice and two senior judges, whereafter the proposal is sent to the state government where various inputs are provided by intelligence agencies. Thereafter, recommendation is made by the state government in the matter. The proposal is then taken to the ministry of law and justice, where once again, intelligence inputs are collected and with the appropriate reports, obtained from all relevant quarters, the matter is placed before the Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and two senior-most judges of the apex court.
{{/usCountry}}“..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 PIL petition was supposed to be a “tool” for the redressal of legitimate grievances of the public at large, and such proceedings cannot be allowed to be invoked for extraneous reasons by unscrupulous persons,” the court said taking note of assertions from the respondents the petitioner was an employee of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC), when Chauhan was a member (judicial) of the commission. Some proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which resulted in an order of discharge being passed against him. It is, therefore, quite obvious that petitioner has personal grievances against Chauhan, the court added further underlining that no other PIL has been filed by the petitioner except one more against Chauhan challenging his appointment as advocate general.
“The filing of successive PIL petitions…. by someone who has a grudge and grievance against (Chauhan), would not be entertained. Such attempts must be thwarted at the very outset,” it said, adding that “this PIL petition is not instituted in genuine public interest.” Hence, saddled the petitioner with a cost of ₹1 lakh to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.