The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Delhi High Court to decide the legality of Gujarat cadre IPS officer Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner “preferably” within two weeks.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana allowed NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, to intervene in the case in the High Court.
‘Identical’ case
The order was passed when Mr. Bhushan’s case, also challenging the Asthana appointment, came up for hearing before the apex court Bench. The “identical” case pending before the High Court has been filed by a Delhi-based advocate, Sadre Alam.
As soon as the hearing began before the CJI Bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court about Mr. Alam’s case in the High Court. He said the apex court should allow the High Court to decide that petition first.
Mr. Bhushan initially resisted. He said the petition in the High Court was filed after his client had moved the apex court. It was a “word to word, copy-paste” of the CPIL’s plea.
“There is this spectre of ambush petitions filed in collusion with the government in order to disable genuine petitions,” he submitted.
Mr. Mehta retorted, “Less said the better about professional PIL litigants who file surrogate petitions”.
However, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud assuaged the situation by highlighting how the court has given Mr. Bhushan’s client permission to intervene in the High Court proceedings. “We have given you the liberty to file a substantive petition in the High Court so that you don’t have to, if such a situation arises, wait for the other petitioner [Alam], though he is the dominus litis , to file an appeal in the Supreme Court,” he explained to Mr. Bhushan.
CJI participation in CPIL case
Meanwhile, the CJI raised the issue of his participation in the CPIL case. He referred to how the CPIL petition alluded to the fact that his views based on law in a high-powered meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Opposition leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury had led to Mr. Asthana’s exit from the list of contenders for the CBI Director post in May.
The CJI had at the time informed the committee about the Supreme Court judgment that only officers with a minimum residual tenure of six months ought to be considered for appointment as CBI Director. Mr. Asthana was scheduled to retire in July, leaving him with less than six months of service.
“I want to raise a couple of issues… One is about my participation in this case. You [CPIL] have said in your petition that I expressed my views on law which concerned this particular gentleman…” Chief Justice Ramana addressed Mr. Bhushan, before adjourning the case by two weeks.
During the hearing, Mr. Bhushan said the appointment of Mr. Asthana, merely four days before his superannuation, was “egregious” and a “brazen violation of every law, every norm”.
‘Panel not formed’
The CPIL said the Centre violated the apex court’s directions in the Prakash Singh judgment as Mr. Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months before retirement. The Centre did not bother to form a Union Public Services Commission panel for the appointment of the Delhi Police chief. Again, the government ignored the criterion laid down by the court in the judgment that candidates should have a minimum tenure of two years.
The CPIL petition has urged the court to cancel the order of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) headed by the Prime Minister on July 27, granting Mr. Asthana inter-cadre deputation from Gujarat to AGMUT cadre.
It has asked the court to direct the government to take steps for a fresh appointment strictly in accordance with the directions of the apex court in the Prakash Singh case.
“The central government did not have the power under Rule 3 of All India Services (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 to relax Rule 16(1) of the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 to give extension to Mr. Rakesh Asthana,” the CPIL noted.
