Today, on Nov 18th, the Bombay High Court rejected an urgent hearing for a PIL challenging the appointments of Rashmi Shukla as Maharashtra’s DGP and the interim DGP Sanjay Verma. The court questioned the petitioner’s standing and the public interest involved, emphasizing that Shukla’s past appointment and the nature of Verma’s temporary role did not warrant immediate attention before the upcoming state assembly polls.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday (Nov 18th) declined an urgent hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the appointment of Rashmi Shukla as Maharashtra’s Director General of Police (DGP) and the “conditional” appointment of Sanjay Verma as the interim DGP. The PIL, filed by city-based lawyer Pratul Bhadale, claimed both appointments were arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Supreme Court guidelines.
The division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar grilled the petitioner’s counsel on the necessity of the PIL.
“Who is the aggrieved party? The person who is appointed as temporary should come. He has not come. What is the public cause in this? How are you (petitioner) concerned?”
the court asked.
The bench emphasized that a PIL must address issues affecting the disadvantaged or the public at large. It questioned why Bhadale did not challenge Shukla’s appointment earlier, as she was appointed DGP in January 2024. “There is no urgency. It will be auto-listed,” the court remarked, effectively postponing any immediate hearing.
Rashmi Shukla, a senior IPS officer, was appointed DGP of Maharashtra in January 2024 despite being slated to retire in June 2024. The PIL alleged that her appointment and subsequent two-year extension were in violation of Supreme Court rulings, which stipulate that a DGP should have at least six months of service left at the time of appointment.
The PIL also targeted Sanjay Verma’s appointment as interim DGP after Shukla was removed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the November 20 Maharashtra state assembly polls. Verma assumed charge on November 5, following a government resolution (GR) that stated his appointment would last only until the election process concluded.
According to the PIL, the ECI’s directive to remove Shukla mandated that Verma’s appointment as DGP be unconditional. However, the state government’s order specified his role as temporary. The petition argued that this “conditional” appointment could compromise Verma’s ability to function independently during a crucial election period.
“The ECI’s communication to the state clearly mandated appointment of Sanjay Verma as DGP without any condition of the appointment being ad-hoc or temporary,”
the plea stated. It further contended that the ad-hoc nature of Verma’s appointment undermined the integrity of the process.
In response, the High Court noted that the state government had complied with the ECI’s directive by removing Shukla and appointing Verma, albeit on a temporary basis. “Purpose is that the ECI has powers till the elections,” the court clarified, underscoring the Election Commission’s jurisdiction over such decisions during electoral periods.
The PIL also called for a review of all documents related to Shukla’s appointment and her two-year extension, as well as Verma’s temporary appointment. It sought the High Court’s intervention to declare Verma’s “conditional” appointment illegal and contrary to law.
With the High Court dismissing the urgency of the PIL, the case will likely proceed as per routine scheduling. While the petitioner raised significant questions about the legality of the appointments and their implications during an election period, the court has thus far expressed skepticism about the petitioner’s standing and the broader public interest involved.
This development highlights the ongoing debate over administrative decisions and judicial oversight in sensitive periods such as elections. As the Maharashtra assembly polls approach, the legal and procedural nuances of these appointments will remain under scrutiny.
The Bombay High Court’s sharp questioning of the petitioner’s locus standi underscores the importance of concrete evidence and genuine public interest in PILs. While the petitioner raised critical points about alleged violations, the court’s focus on procedural compliance and urgency serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s cautious approach to such matters.
As the bench aptly noted, “Who is the aggrieved party?” This question may shape the outcome of the case and its implications for governance in Maharashtra.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE