Bombay HC chief justice declines to hear PIL as petitioner complained to CJI against him

Chief justice (CJ) Dipankar Datta of the Bombay high court on Thursday recused himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by former additional commissioner of police Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, claiming that the petitioner had in March written to the chief justice of India (CJI), N V Ramana, complaining against him (Datta)

Chief justice (CJ) Dipankar Datta of the Bombay high court on Thursday recused himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by former additional commissioner of police Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, claiming that the petitioner had in March written to the chief justice of India (CJI), N V Ramana, complaining against him (Datta). Trivedi’s counsel, however, denied making any such complaint and said he was willing to put it in an affidavit.

Chief justice Dipankar Datta of the Bombay high court HT Archives

Trivedi had filed the plea through advocate Satish Talekar challenging the appointment of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Subodh Kumar Jaiswal. He alleged that Jaiswal, the former Mumbai police commissioner, was not qualified for the top post as he did not have the requisite experience and had a tainted record.

On Thursday, the PIL came up for hearing before a division bench of CJ Datta and justice Makarand Karnik. “It seems the petitioner has written a letter to the CJI and it is not in good taste,” CJ Datta said. He then showed the letter to Talekar and asked, “How should we defend ourselves?”

Talekar, however, said his client would not indulge in such an act and had not forwarded any complaint to the CJI. He also said that he was willing to put his denial in an affidavit and that it was possible that someone impersonated Trivedi.

The CJ said in light of the complaint, it was not appropriate for him to hear the matter and hence, the petitioner should approach some other bench.

“This is absolutely not in good taste. It is very easy to write letters and tarnish the image of judges,” CJ Datta said and recused himself from hearing the plea.

Additional solicitor general Anil Singh said it was very common for people who did not get the desired relief to write such letters.

The petition will now be heard by a bench headed by justice PB Varale.

In a previous hearing, the bench of CJ Datta had asked the Centre to reply to the plea.

In response, the home department of personnel and training filed an affidavit stating that Jaiswal was among the senior-most officers in the country and he was appointed by a panel set up as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.

The department also said that the agency monitoring the records of the personnel had also not found any complaint or court case pending against Jaiswal at the time of his appointment. The affidavit also refuted the allegation of Trivedi that Jaiswal did not have the requisite experience in investigating anti-corruption cases.

The Centre said that Jaiswal had been the superintendent of police of three districts and also held the post of Mumbai police commissioner and Director General of Police, Maharashtra, before being appointed as director of CBI. In all these postings he had overseen the investigation not only in anti-corruption cases but had also supervised the probe into white-collar crimes and hence, his appointment was valid, the affidavit said.