'This Heated Exchange Enriches Us': Bombay HC CJ After Navroz Seervai's Arguments In Maharashtra DGP Matter

There was an intense hearing session in the Bombay High Court yesterday in the case relating to the appointment of the Director-General of Police of Maharashtra, with Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for the Acting DGP Sanjay Pandey, seeking the right to be heard in the matter.A bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta was hearing a PIL seeking directions to the State Government to act on the three recommendations made by the Union Public Service Commission for DGP. Notably, the name of the Acting DGP was not recommended by the UPSC.Seervai wanted his client to be impleaded as a party and sought a day's adjournment. However, the bench asked if Pandey, in his capacity as acting DGP, even had the right to be heard. The exchanges between Seervai and the Chief Justice got so heated up that after the hearing Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni made a lighter vein suggestion that the air-conditioning of the courtroom could be turned on.The PIL challenged the Maharashtra Government's failure to appoint a permanent Director General of Police from the three names recommended by UPSC's selection committee on November 1, 2021. This procedure for selection was laid down in Supreme Court landmark judgement in Prakash Singh vs UoI on police reforms. In the case at hand, the Maharashtra Government wrote to the UPSC eight days after their meeting to point out that Pandey was left out from consideration due to improper rule application. Below are excerpts from the courtroom exchange between Seervai and the Chief Justice. Seervai : "The enunciation in Supreme Court's orders is that no order can be passed affecting or prejudicing a person without making them a party. And my request is whichever way an order is passed, the party most vitally affected will be Mr Sanjay Pandey. He has a lot to say and put on record…..no order should be passed without hearing him." The CJ asked what right Pandey had to the post, to which Seervai answered that he was the senior-most officer and a man of great integrity. "These are certain qualities for holding a very high position, but they do not give you a RIGHT to cling on to the post," the Chief said, adding that neither Pandey nor had the State formally challenged the UPSC's recommendations. "We are giving you this opportunity to show us what right on the post you have. Unless you can show us a 'right,' we will not be able to consider your request (for a hearing)," the Chief said. The court later added that it wouldn't pass an order without hearing Seervai even if they didn't make him a party before the end of the day. "My lords will then allow me (to be heard on Thursday or Friday).. The heavens aren't going to fall.. he has been acting DGP since April 2021. The [UPSC recommendation] meeting is of November 1, we are in January now..," Seervai said. However, the court felt the delay had worked in Pandey's favour. "Is my lord seriously suggesting that an order can be passed admittedly affecting me without making me a party and allowing me to be heard?" Seervai sought time to cite SC judgements on his right to be heard. Meanwhile, the court heard the Advocate General, petitioner's counsel Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud and Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh before coming back to Seervai. The AG had begun by saying that "on a cooler note," since the temperatures in the city had dipped, and everyone was enjoying with their sweaters, the bench may consider not allowing the temperature to rise. He submitted that the State was only seeking Pandey to be reasonably considered by the UPSC and be recommended for the post of DGP. When it was finally Seervai's turn, he submitted that according to the Supreme Court judgements, the person does not have to show a 'right' before he is made a party, so long as he is likely to be prejudiced… CJ- We are giving you the right of an audience here and now; otherwise, we will close the hearing. Seervai -My right is to be made a party.. my right is a right to a hearing. The CJ responded that he was being given a hearing right now. Seervai - No, hearing after being made a party. CJ- The principle of Audi alteram partem rests on being heard. Seervai- My ability to be heard includes my right to place my factual case on record. That is being denied. CJ- We are giving you the opportunity, please argue. Seervai- But it is only a partial opportunity. Not the opportunity envisaged by the SC. CJ – You are here as an intervenor. It is not necessary for an intervenor to always be brought on record. Seervai - I am not an intervenor, I applied to be made party respondent. Let's be very clear. I will have to argue because I am being put at a great disadvantage, but that's fine. Seervai then cited the 1984 judgement of Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh. Referring to the judgement where certain teachers were...

'This Heated Exchange Enriches Us': Bombay HC CJ After Navroz Seervai's Arguments In Maharashtra DGP Matter

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags