New Delhi, Feb 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court recently disposed of a challenge to the appointment of former Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana.
However, it left opened the legal question of whether the 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh versus Union of India applies to the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioners.
A bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, stated, “The only legal issue that survives for consideration is whether the principles enumerated by this court in Prakash Singh (I), Prakash Singh (II), and Prakash Singh (III) shall be applicable in the matter of appointment of Commissioner of Police, Delhi. While the case of the petitioner is that those principles will apply ‘mutatis mutandis’ to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, the Union of India contends that the Prakash Singh decision does not apply to the deployment, posting, or appointment of officers belonging to the AGMUT cadre.”
Given that Asthana retired during the pendency of proceedings, the Court ruled, “Keeping in view the subsequent events mentioned above, the special leave petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, the question of law is kept open to be gone into in an appropriate case.”
Asthana, a 1984-batch Gujarat cadre IPS officer, was appointed Delhi Police Commissioner in July 2021 on inter-cadre deputation. Four days before his retirement, the Ministry of Home Affairs extended his service for one year beyond his superannuation date of July 31, 2021.
Several litigants challenged his appointment in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the post of Delhi Police Commissioner was akin to a State DGP position and, therefore, the Prakash Singh guidelines should have been followed by the central government.
The Prakash Singh judgment laid down the following key guidelines for the appointment of State DGPs:
That the DGP should be selected from the three senior-most officers empanelled by UPSC, based on service record and experience. The DGP must have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of superannuation and the candidates should have a residual tenure of at least six months before retirement.
Petitioners contended that Asthana’s appointment violated these guidelines as he was not empanelled by UPSC and had less than six months of residual tenure, retiring just four days after his appointment.
In October 2021, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Prakash Singh applied only to State DGPs and not to Union Territories. The Court noted that applying these directions to Union Territories could create an “anomalous situation”, as UTs do not have a sufficient pool of officers in the AGMUT cadre with the requisite experience.
The High Court also observed that Asthana had 37 years of experience in various posts and was deemed suitable by the Centre to be appointed as Delhi Police Commissioner on inter-cadre deputation from Gujarat to AGMUT. The appointment was justified as a strategic decision to manage Delhi’s complex law-and-order challenges, which often have international implications.
An NGO, which was an intervener in the High Court, challenged its verdict in the Supreme Court. Given that Asthana retired in 2022, the apex court found the issue infructuous but left the legal question open.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the High Court’s observations on the applicability of Prakash Singh to Police Commissioners could impact future appointments. He asserted that similar future appointments would amount to contempt of court if they violated Prakash Singh.
Justice Kant responded, “We will provide you a remedy… we hope that it does not happen in future.” However, he also cautioned against rigid application of the guidelines, noting that a hard-and-fast rule could sometimes be detrimental to the public interest.
“A situation may arise where even you may say that this appointment does not strictly follow the rules, but it is in the public interest,” he remarked.
