Petition Is An Abuse Of Process Of Law And Manifestly An Outcome Of Some Personal Vendetta Against Rakesh Asthana: Centre Submits Before Supreme Court

In response to NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation's challenge to the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that the petition is "an abuse of process of law and manifestly an outcome of some personal vendetta against incumbent police commissioner entertained by the petitioner"The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and AS Bopanna is seized of two petitions filed by the CPIL - one a writ petition filed against the Central Government order appointing Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, and the other a special leave petition filed against the Delhi High Court's judgment which rejected the challenge against Asthana's appointment. The Supreme Court had on November 26, 2021 issued notice on the petitions filed by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Commissioner of Delhi Police. As soon as the matter was taken, the bench had told Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the CPIL, that it was issuing notice. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta had appeared for the Union of India and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Rakesh Asthana. The Court had directed that counter-affidavits be filed within 2 weeks. The Supreme Court on Wednesday posted for final disposal on a Non-Miscellaneous Day petitions filed by the petitions. On Wednesday, Mr. Bhushan told the bench that the petitioners do not seek to file any response to the Centre's counter-affidavit and prayed that he be allowed 30-40 minutes to argue the matter. However, on account of the urgency with regard to the matter concerning the EWS reservation in the NEET-AIQ, the bench adjourned the same.The counter-affidavit on behalf of the Centre, filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, contends that the petition is an abuse of process of law and manifestly an outcome of some personal vendetta against incumbent police commissioner entertained by the petitioner- "This becomes clear from the fact that though the petition is based on Prakash Singh-(1) judgment [(2006) 8 SCC 1] eight (8) IPS officers have been appointed by the Central Government as Police Commissioner Delhi following the very same procedure which has been followed while making the appointment in the present case. In the instant case, Shri Rakesh Asthana, IPS has been granted extension of service and has been appointed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi initially for a period of one year beyond the date of superannuation on 31.07.2021 or until further orders whichever is earlier in relaxation of 16(1) of the AIS(DCRB) Rules, 1958 as a special case in public interest. However, petitioner claims to be espousing a public cause, never considered challenging appointment of eight (8) erstwhile Police Commissioners though they were appointed in the same manner as is done in the case of Respondent No.2 (Asthana). Such a selective exhibition of "public interest" speaks volume about the motive behind filing present petition and Writ petition in the Supreme Court""It is submitted that the petitioner is a busy body. The petitioner keeps on selectively filing petitions and such selection of selected public interest are for the reasons which are beyond comprehension. Assuming that any intermeddler can bring issues to the notice of the Hon'ble Court, the role of such a busy body must come to an end and they cannot convert the petition into a bi-parte dispute", it is advanced.The deponent however states that the detail rationale behind appointment of the Respondent No 2 to the post of CP Delhi Police, his inter-cadre deputation and the extension of service given to him forms part of the original file, and that the deponent undertakes to place the original file for perusal of the court during the course of hearing of the present matter- "A bare perusal of the reasons provided in the original file manifest that both inter-cadre deputation as well as extension of service of Respondent No.2 was granted by the Central Government in public interest. The prime consideration for the same was that GNCT being the capital of the country has been witnessing diverse and extremely challenging situations of public order/law and order situation/policing issues which not only had national security implications but also international/cross border implications. As such, a compelling need was felt by the Central Government to appoint a person as a head of the police force of Delhi, who had diverse and vast experience of heading a large police force in a large State having diverse political as well as public order problem/experience of working and supervising Central Investigating Agency(s) as well as para-military forces. To achieve the above purpose a search was done in AGMUT cadre, which is the IPS cadre for GNCT. However, since AGMUT cadre being a cadre comprising of Union Territory and small north-eastern states, it was felt that requisite experience of working and supervising the...

Petition Is An Abuse Of Process Of Law And Manifestly An Outcome Of Some Personal Vendetta Against Rakesh Asthana: Centre Submits Before Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

Tags