Today, On 6th September, The Supreme Court issued a notice to Jharkhand’s Chief Secretary and Acting DGP Anurag Gupta in response to a contempt of court petition. The plea challenges Gupta’s appointment, claiming it violates previous Supreme Court rulings. Petitioners seeking the quashing of his appointment, arguing it goes against established legal guidelines
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Friday, issued notices to the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand and the acting Director General of Police (DGP) in response to a petition seeking contempt of court proceedings against them for the ad-hoc appointment of the latter.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directed the respondents to submit their replies within two weeks.
The case scheduled to be heard again on September 23.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud stated,
“The Supreme Court is issuing notices to both the Jharkhand government (respondent no. 1) and Anurag Gupta (respondent no. 2) in response to the petition. “
The petition further criticized the July 25, 2024, notification appointing Gupta, stating,
“No justification was provided for the ad-hoc appointment, which appears to have been done for political considerations in light of the impending elections in the state.”
It also expressed concerns that the prescribed procedure had been disregarded, undermining the integrity of the appointment process for the top police post.
The petition, submitted by advocate Vikas Mehta, seeks to initiate contempt proceedings for the alleged wilful and deliberate disobedience of court orders regarding the procedure for appointing the Director General of Police (DGP) in the state.
The petitioner contended that Anurag Gupta’s appointment as acting DGP was in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Prakash Singh case, which addresses police reforms. They highlighted that Gupta had been removed from his position by the Election Commission in 2019 and ordered to stay out of the state until the conclusion of that year’s general elections.
Furthermore, the petitioner emphasized that various departmental and criminal proceedings against Gupta should have disqualified him from being appointed to the post.
In a Contempt of Court case in India, the legal provisions governing contempt are primarily found in,
1. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
- Section 2 of the Act defines two types of contempt:
- Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other processes of a court.
- Criminal Contempt: Any act or publication which scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice.
2. Article 129 of the Indian Constitution:
- It confers the Supreme Court the power to punish for its contempt. The article states that the Supreme Court is a court of record and has all powers to punish contempt of itself.
3. Article 215 of the Indian Constitution:
- This article grants similar powers to the High Courts, declaring them courts of record and giving them the power to punish contempt of their jurisdiction.
The petition, which sought to nullify Gupta’s appointment, was filed by Advocate Vikas Mehta, with Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan and Advocates Kartik Pandey, Abhinav Srivastav, and Aishani Narain representing the petitioner.
In 2006, the Supreme Court delivered the Prakash Singh judgment, which laid down guidelines aimed at depoliticizing the police force and ensuring independent and professional leadership. It specified criteria for the appointment of DGPs to prevent ad-hoc or temporary appointments.
Read order: [Naresh Malkani v Lalbiaktluanga Khiangte and ors].