On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL contesting the appointment of IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner.
The Departmental Court of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Judge Jyoti Singh, who last month reserved the final order on the case, issued the verdict. However, a copy of the judgment was not immediately available.
The PIL was filed by a lawyer, Sadre Alam, to repeal Asthana’s appointment, Intercaldre delegation, and service expansion. The court had previously also allowed the Public Interest Litigation Center to intervene in the case. Alam was also accused by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation to copy the contents of his motion pending in the Supreme Court against the appointment of Asthana.
The centre had argued against the petition that the Prakash Singh ruling of the Supreme Court did not apply to Delhi.
The petitioners can take revenge in person on Defendant 2 [Asthana], but PIL is not the forum to settle bills. PIL is an industry. It’s a career in itself,” argued Indian Attorney General Tushar Mehta in court last month.
Mehta argued that Delhi had no state cadres and that the Parkash Singh ruling only applied to the appointment of state police chiefs. He also alleged that the government had investigated all officers and concluded that “it would not be in the interests of justice to entrust any of them to such a delicate position of CP of the Capital.”
The centre also said in a written response to the petition that Asthana has been tasked with “effectively monitoring” recent public order situations in the state capital. Since the AGMUT cadre includes the Union Territory and the small northeastern states, the necessary experience “to work and oversee the central investigative body, paramilitary forces and police of a large state with various political problems and public order” – was required found that it is missing from the current pool of available officers, he said in response.
Attorney Prashant Bhushan, the representative of the Public Interest Litigation Center, had argued in court that Prakash Singh’s judgment was applicable to the case and that such a conclusion that no other official would be deemed appropriate could only be made by the Union Public Service Commission.
“What is the question of the Indian government which decides on its own initiative that there is no one to fit in? Just look at the demoralizing effect it will have on the officers of the AGMUT cadre when the Indian government solemnly tells you that none of you in your cadre are fit enough to be a police commissioner, that there is no officer suitable enough to be a police officer. be. and that they have to bring an officer from Gujarat who will retire in four days,” Bhushan argued.
Asthana also defended her appointment last month. Senior attorney Mukul Rohtagi, his attorney, argued that the Alam PIL was “not a real PIL” and “a representative of someone” who did not want to comment.
