The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the recommendation of Senior Advocate Pravindra Singh Chauhan for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench held that the petition was not instituted in genuine public interest and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner.
The order was passed by Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor on August 10, 2026.
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by Pradeep Singh seeking directions to the Union Government to keep in abeyance the recommendations concerning the appointment of Pravindra Chauhan. The petitioner also sought a direction preventing the High Court from administering the oath of office.
The respondents questioned the maintainability of the PIL, alleging that it was filed to settle a personal score. The Court noted that the petitioner had earlier challenged Chauhan’s appointment as Advocate General, Haryana, through another PIL, which had been dismissed in January 2026.
The Court was also informed that the petitioner had earlier been an employee of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, where Chauhan had served as a Judicial Member. Proceedings against the petitioner had eventually resulted in his discharge from service.
Court’s Observations
The Bench stressed that a PIL challenging an appointment to a high Constitutional office must be brought by a person whose credentials are beyond question.
The Court 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 the Supreme Court Collegium, along with inputs from intelligence agencies.
“The process itself is exhaustive,” the Bench observed, adding that such recommendations cannot ordinarily be questioned by a person approaching the Court with a personal grievance.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, the Court reiterated that courts must discourage PILs filed for personal gain, private motives or extraneous considerations.
The Bench also expressed “utmost disapproval” over the petitioner relying on the headnote of a judgment published on Indian Kanoon instead of referring to a particular passage from the judgment.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the PIL was not instituted in genuine public interest. It accordingly dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs, with the amount to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh.
Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Pradeep Singh v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: CWP-PIL-212-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor
Decision Date: August 10, 2026
 and NTPC Limite-300x169.webp)