Delhi top cop Asthana says PIL against him driven by ‘personal vendetta’

In an affidavit filed in response to CPIL’s petitions challenging his appointment as Delhi Police commissioner on July 27, Asthana highlighted that CPIL and Common Cause have been consistently picking on him out of malice and an “unknown agenda”

Delhi Police commissioner Rakesh Asthana has submitted in the Supreme Court 31 tweets posted against him by advocate Prashant Bhushan in the last four years, as the 1984-batch IPS officer claimed that the challenge to his appointment as the national capital’s top cop was driven by “personal vendetta” and “vengeance” of NGOs CPIL and Common Cause, both represented by Bhushan.

Rakesh Asthana took charge as commissioner of Delhi Police on July 28, 2021. His appointment for one year came just four days before his superannuation on July 31. (ANI File)

In an affidavit filed in response to CPIL’s petitions challenging his appointment as Delhi Police commissioner on July 27, Asthana highlighted that CPIL and Common Cause have been consistently picking on him out of malice and an “unknown agenda” following his appointment in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as a special director in October 2017.

“The conduct of the petitioner (CPIL) herein in maligning the image of Respondent No.2 (Asthana) ever since his appointment in CBI is evident from the following facts and it can be satisfactorily concluded that the petitioner is carrying out personal vengeance against him. These petitions are, therefore, not bonafide public interest litigations but are a flagrant abuse of process and forum that is this Hon’ble Court,” stated the affidavit.

It detailed five cases in which Common Cause and CPIL moved the apex court since 2017, raising questions over Asthana’s appointment in CBI; sought his removal as special director in CBI; demanded a probe against him in connection to a bribery case; and finally, through the fresh petitions, filed in August and November 2021, challenged his appointment as commissioner.

“The aforesaid petitions were followed by a scathing social media campaign against Respondent No.2 (Asthana) maligning his reputation on multiple social media platforms, which corroborates the apprehension of the answering respondent that these challenges to his appointment were solely a result of some personal vendetta held by the petitioner,” added the affidavit, asking for dismissal of CPIL’s petition.

The senior police officer then highlighted Bhushan’s tweets when petitions against him were filed and decided by the top court since 2017. “It is pertinent to mention here that the dates of filing and decisions in the petitions listed in the table above are suspiciously similar to timeline of the tweets between October 22, 2017 and July 28, 2021. True copies of the snapshots of tweets are annexed,” stated the affidavit.

Asthana has attached with his affidavit screenshots of 31 tweets posted against him by Bhushan, who has argued all the five cases against him in the Supreme Court on behalf of the NGOs. “This sustained and strategic maligning of the answering respondent’s character further goes on to show the malafide of the present petitioner in carrying out a personal vendetta against the answering respondent. Hence, the present petition is another attempt in furtherance to the personal vendetta and is not even remotely in the interest of general public,” asserted Asthana in his reply.

Asthana took charge as commissioner of Delhi Police on July 28, 2021. His appointment for one year came just four days before his superannuation on July 31. Before his appointment, the Indian Police Service officer was granted an inter-cadre deputation to a cadre comprising Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram, and Union territories other than Andaman and Nicobar, and an extension of service.

CPIL, in its writ petition on August 2021 before the top court, alleged several illegalities in the inter-cadre deputation and extension of service, and claimed the appointment breached the condition stipulated in the Prakash Singh case because Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months.

The other petition by CPIL before the Supreme Court on November 2021 is an appeal against the Delhi high court’s October 12 judgment affirming Asthana’s appointment.

The Union government, in its response to CPIL’s petitions filed on Tuesday, justified Asthana’s appointment underlining that there was a “compelling need” to have someone like him head the police force of Delhi, taking into account the national capital’s “extremely challenging situations” of public order, policing issues, and their implications on national security.

The Centre had also sought dismissal of CPIL’s petition, calling the NGO a “busybody”. “The petitioner keeps on selectively filing petitions and such selection of selected public interest...are beyond comprehensions...,” it said.

On Wednesday, the matter came up before a bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and AS Bopanna and it was adjourned for a detailed hearing in the week starting January 11.

Meanwhile, explaining his appointment as the Delhi Police Commissioner, Asthana maintained that it was done following a well-settled procedure which was also adhered to when eight previous police commissioners in Delhi were appointed.

“However, appointment of Respondent No.2 (Asthana)is the only appointment ever challenged by the petitioner herein, for the reasons best known to them. It is evident from this selective criticism and specific challenge with respect to the respondent’s appointment that the petitioner has a specific, malafide and unknown agenda,” he claimed in the affidavit.

Asthana further relied upon the the Delhi high court’s October 12 judgment affirming his appointment while pointing out that Delhi, being the capital of India, has its own characteristics, peculiar factors, complexities and sensitivities, which are far lesser in any other Commissionerate.

“Any untoward incident in the National Capital or a law-and-order situation will have far reaching consequences, impact, repercussions and implications not only in India but across the international borders. Thus, it is imperative that ‘free movement of joints’ is given to the central government for appointment of Commissioner of Police, Delhi, keeping in mind the complexities obtaining in the Capital,” emphasised the affidavit.

It added that the Supreme Court’s 2016 order in the Prakash Singh case, requiring a police chief of a state to have at least six months of service left, applies only to the director general of police or police heads of states but not to Union territories such as Delhi. This was the view taken by the Delhi high court as well.

On the challenge to his inter-state cadre deputation and extension of service, the affidavit maintained that the rules provide for inter-cadre deputation of all India service officers by the central government, which also had the power to give service extension to officers on valid grounds.

Prashant Bhushan said, “I have personally observed Asthana’s undesirable role in various capacity in police force and CBI, besides his closeness to the central government. I, therefore, commented on those aspects in my tweets. However, the challenge to his appointment as Delhi Police commissioner is purely on legal grounds. Also, I may have personal views on somebody but CPIL and Common Cause have a governing body and a committee that decide on filing of cases in courts.”