The Supreme Court, in the DGP appointments case, ruled that PIL can’t be permitted to settle scores between competing officers, reinforcing its true purpose in public interest.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be misused as a tool for personal or professional rivalries. The judgment came while the Court dismissed a contempt plea related to the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Jharkhand.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, on August 19, 2025, clarified the boundaries of PIL jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that PIL was devised to relax the rule of locus standi, allowing public-spirited individuals to approach the courts on behalf of marginalized or disadvantaged groups who otherwise could not afford access to justice.
However, the Court strongly cautioned that this mechanism cannot be permitted to become a battleground for settling personal or professional scores. The bench stated,
“The PIL jurisdiction, therefore, cannot be permitted to become a mechanism to settle the scores between the competing officers.”
Also Read: DGP Appointment Process || ‘Adhering to 2006 Apex Court Ruling’: Tripura Govt. To SC
Background of the Case
The contempt plea was filed alleging disobedience of the Supreme Court’s earlier orders by the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand. The petitioner argued that the rules framed by the State were intended to shield one officer, Anurag Gupta, while another officer, Ajay Kumar Singh, was allegedly removed from the post of DGP in an unauthorized manner.
The Court, however, noted that the matter appeared to arise primarily from a dispute between two senior officers of the Jharkhand Police Department. In such circumstances, the Court held that officers claiming denial of their legitimate rights to a post should seek remedies through appropriate legal channels rather than disguising the dispute as a PIL.
The bench reiterated,
“If a person is aggrieved by any action of the State with regard to his illegal removal from the service or due to denial of his legitimate claim to a post, such an officer can very well take recourse to the remedies available to him in law.”
Link to the Prakash Singh Judgment:
The dispute is rooted in the landmark Prakash Singh case, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the appointment of DGPs in States, ensuring transparency and merit-based selections. The present matter, however, deviated from genuine public interest and instead reflected a rivalry between officers.
CASE TITLE:
PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 310/1996
READ ORDER HERE