The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner, noting it was moot due to his retirement, but left broader legal issues on police appointments unresolved.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the 2021 appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, stating that the case had become infructuous since Asthana has retired from the post. However, the Court made it clear that it has not ruled on the broader legal issues related to police appointments.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed that if similar irregularities arise in the future, the Court will take judicial notice of them.
“We hope it doesn’t happen in the future. If it does, we’ll take cognizance. If we do it now it will unnecessarily create problems for many decorated officers,”
the Court remarked.
The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) had filed the petition in 2021, challenging Asthana’s appointment just four days before his scheduled retirement. The NGO argued that this violated the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case, which mandates that a person appointed as the Director General of Police (DGP) should have at least six months of service left before retirement.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the Court noted that since Asthana has completed his tenure, CPIL’s plea had lost its relevance. However, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CPIL, insisted that the issue of executive overreach in police appointments was still a pressing concern.
“The whole purpose of Prakash Singh was the independence of the police from the politicians,” Bhushan argued, emphasizing that political interference in such appointments undermines police autonomy.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, countered CPIL’s argument, asserting that the Prakash Singh ruling does not apply to the appointment of Delhi’s Police Commissioner. He maintained that Asthana’s appointment was made in public interest and within the legal framework.
Bhushan, however, pointed out that Asthana’s inter-cadre transfer from Gujarat to the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre just days before his retirement was a clear deviation from standard procedures. He further claimed that such exceptions were becoming more frequent, citing similar executive interventions in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects BJP Leader Sunil Soren’s Bail in Rape Case: “Must Face Arrest”
While the Court acknowledged that exceptions to standard appointment rules may sometimes be necessary, it stressed the importance of evaluating their legality and fairness.
“Any hard and fast criteria might be detrimental to public interest. Sometimes in situations, you may be required to deviate from the normal rules and take a decision in public interest. We are just trying to diffuse the problem here,”
the Bench observed.
Ultimately, the Court decided to close the case but left the larger legal questions open, making it clear that it could revisit the issue in the future if similar cases arise.
Case Title – Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES