Supreme Court Closes Petition Against Rakesh Asthana’s Appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed a petition challenging the 2021 appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner. The petition was rendered infructuous as Asthana has since retired from the post.
A bench comprising Justice Suryakant and Justice N.Kotishwar Singh clarified, however, that it had not addressed the broader legal question raised in the case—whether the guidelines established in the 2006 Prakash Singh vs. Union of India case, concerning police appointments, are binding in the selection of the Delhi Police Commissioner.
The Court further stated that should any irregularities in future police appointments come to light, it would take judicial notice of the same. However, the bench opted not to make a ruling at this stage, noting that such an intervention could complicate matters for many distinguished officers.
The petition, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) in 2021, challenged Asthana’s appointment, which occurred just four days before his retirement following an inter-cadre transfer from Gujarat to Delhi. CPIL argued that this violated the Prakash Singh guidelines, which require that a candidate appointed as Chief of Police or Director General of Police should have at least six months remaining in service before their retirement. CPIL contended that this rule was breached in Asthana’s case.
During the hearing, the Court observed that the petition had become infructuous since Asthana had already completed his tenure. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, emphasized concerns about executive overreach in police appointments, arguing that the purpose of the Prakash Singh ruling was to ensure the independence of the police from political interference.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan Appeared for CPIL
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, disagreed with CPIL’s stance. He argued that the Prakash Singh judgment did not apply to the appointment of the Delhi Police Commissioner, asserting that Asthana’s appointment was made in the public interest and within the legal framework.
The Court noted that while deviations from standard appointment procedures may occasionally be made in the public interest, it remained essential to assess whether such exceptions were legally valid. The bench emphasized that no rigid criteria should be established, as certain situations may warrant deviation for the greater public good.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition while leaving the legal questions raised in the case open for future consideration.
