The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the recommendation of Shri Pravindra Chauhan for appointment as a Judge of the High Court, holding that the petition was not instituted in genuine public interest and was instead motivated by the petitioner’s personal grievances against him. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor imposed costs of ₹1 lakh, directing the amount to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
The PIL sought directions to the Union Government to keep in abeyance the recommendations for Shri Pravindra Chauhan’s appointment and to restrain the Punjab and Haryana High Court from executing his warrant of appointment and administering the oath.
The respondents opposed the maintainability of the PIL, alleging that it was filed to settle a personal score. The Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a PIL challenging Shri Pravindra Chauhan’s appointment as Advocate General, Haryana, which was dismissed on January 21, 2026. It further noted that the petitioner had been an employee of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission when Mr Chauhan was its Judicial Member and that proceedings against the petitioner had eventually resulted in his discharge from service.
The Bench held that a PIL challenging an appointment to a high Constitutional Office must be brought by a person whose credentials are beyond question. It observed that the appointment process for a High Court Judge is exhaustive, involving the High Court Collegium, State Government, Ministry of Law and Justice and Supreme Court Collegium, and that such recommendations cannot ordinarily be questioned, particularly by a petitioner with a personal axe to grind.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s principles in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Court reiterated that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked for extraneous or oblique purposes and that courts must scrutinise the credentials of petitioners and ensure that proceedings genuinely involve public interest.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal,1992 AIR 604, finding that the decisions had no applicability to the facts of the present case. The Bench expressed utmost disapproval of the petitioner’s reliance on the headnote of Bhajan Lal published on Indian Kanoon without referring to any specific passage from the judgment.
Concluding that the PIL was not instituted in genuine public interest, the Court dismissed it with ₹1 lakh costs.
