E-Paper
Contempt plea in SC over Asthana’s appointment as Delhi Police top cop
Manohar Lal Sharma, the petitioner, argued the decision is contrary to the Supreme Court’s July 3, 2018, judgment in the Prakash Singh case which said UPSC should, as far as practicable, consider officers with two years of service for such appointments
A lawyer on Friday moved the Supreme Court seeking contempt action against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah for the Centre’s decision to appoint Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police commissioner days before his retirement date.
Manohar Lal Sharma, the petitioner, who is a serial litigator with a penchant for filing public interest litigations or PILs, argued that the decision is contrary to the Supreme Court’s July 3, 2018, judgment in the Prakash Singh case which said the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) should, as far as practicable, consider officers with two years of service for such appointments.
The court held merit and seniority should be given due weightage.
A Union home ministry spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.
The 2018 order came up for reconsideration after several officers lost their chances as the UPSC insisted upon the “two-year residual tenure” rule.
On March 13, 2019, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and observed the respective Police Acts of states do not provide for any fixed residual tenures for officers to be recommended as police chiefs. “The object in issuing directions in Prakash Singh case in our considered view, can best be achieved if the residual tenure of an officer, i.e. remaining period of service till normal retirement, is fixed on a reasonable basis, which, in our considered view, should be a period of six months,” the bench said.
In May, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana alluded to the judgment when candidates, including Asthana, were being considered for the post of director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Sharma has urged the court to declare the notification appointing Asthana “illegal”. He argued the appointment of Asthana, a 1984 batch Indian Police Service officer from the Gujarat cadre, “fell afoul of the rule laid down by the apex court”.
The Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) on Tuesday announced Asthana’s appointment three days before his retirement. “The respondent no.1 (PM Modi) is the head of the ACC and respondent no.2 (Amit Shah) is the Minister of Home Affairs who jointly decided and done impugned appointment against the judgment of the Supreme Court. Hence, they are party to this for contempt of court,” Sharma said in his plea.
He filed the plea a day after the Delhi assembly on Thursday passed a resolution directing the Delhi government to write to the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) seeking immediate withdrawal of the appointment of Asthana and initiate a fresh selection process. The resolution referred to the legal precedent on the appointment of police chiefs and said Asthana’s appointment flouted that.
It said the appointment is in complete violation of the Supreme Court judgment in the Prakash Singh case, which “clearly lays down that no individual who has less than six months of service left, can be considered for appointment as head of a police force anywhere in the country”.
