Today, On 18th August, In the DGP appointments case, the Supreme Court said contempt cannot be used to settle political disputes and clarified that the proper forum is CAT, stressing that PIL jurisdiction is meant only to protect socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Supreme Court on Friday heard a plea that raised concerns about the ad-hoc appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs) in different states.
The matter was placed before a Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
Senior Advocate Ramachandran informed the court that a Tamil Nadu officer who had earlier been exonerated had now applied for appointment.
He also mentioned another plea filed by Prakash Singh in which it was suggested that instead of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the Chief Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of the High Court should be given the responsibility of selecting the DGP.
Also Read: DGP Appointment Process || ‘Adhering to 2006 Apex Court Ruling’: Tripura Govt. To SC
Supporting this idea in his capacity as amicus, Ramachandran said he agreed with the proposal.
Appearing for Prakash Singh, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued,
“The process should follow the model used for appointing the CBI Director.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan added that even in the Anoop Baranwal case, the main principle was to make sure that the police were kept free from executive interference.
He submitted before the court,
“We have the list where appointment was against the order of this court.”
Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, appearing in connection with the Jharkhand DGP contempt case, told the court that,
“An Acting DGP has been appointed just like UP did. States are repeatedly trying to bypass the process.”
At this stage, the Chief Justice remarked,
“Our extraordinary powers operate only until a law is enacted. Once the legislature makes a law, what should prevail our directions or the statute?”
Responding to this, Prakash Singh submitted that,
“The main PIL has gone cold without monitoring, which is why such cases keep arising.”
The Chief Justice then questioned,
“Do we even have the expertise to monitor this?”
On this point, Ramachandran made a suggestion that,
“The suggestion is for HC special benches to meet every three months to ensure the judgment is implemented.”
The Chief Justice finally said,
“We’ll take it up after the Constitution Bench matter.”
In its order, the Supreme Court said that it was not inclined to proceed with the contempt plea.
The amicus suggested that the pending writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court should be withdrawn and filed in the Supreme Court itself.
The Chief Justice further observed,
“In the Jharkhand matter, contempt cannot be used to settle political disputes. If there’s an issue with a specific appointment, the proper forum is CAT. Political scores should be settled before the electorate. PIL jurisdiction is meant to protect those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.”
The Chief Justice also pointed out,
“This contempt plea is essentially aimed at defying this Court’s orders against the State Chief Secretary. The State rules appear to protect Mr. Anurag Gupta, and the grievance also involves the removal of Mr. Ajaykumar Shri as police chief. What emerges is a dispute between two officers being projected as contempt.”
He made it clear that,
“If any officer feels wronged by removal or denial of service benefits, the remedy lies in law. PIL has been started by this court to allow a public spirited person to relax locus for genuine public interest, not to settle personal or institutional rivalries. Hence, we decline to entertain the plea.”
With these remarks, the Supreme Court closed the contempt plea, leaving the larger issue of proper DGP appointments to be taken up later after the Constitution Bench matter is dealt with.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
