Delhi HC Dismisses Petition Challenging Rakesh Asthana's Appointment As Delhi Police Commissioner
On October 12, 2021, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The PIL, filed by lawyer Sadre Alam, contended that Asthana's appointment violated the Supreme Court's directions in the Prakash Singh case, particularly regarding the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) panel and the requirement of a minimum residual tenure of six months.
Key Aspects of the Delhi High Court's Judgment
1. Applicability of the Prakash Singh Guidelines
The Court noted that the Prakash Singh guidelines, which pertain to the appointment of Director Generals of Police (DGPs) in states, are not applicable to Union Territories like Delhi. The unique administrative structure of Delhi and the limited pool of eligible officers in the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre necessitate a different approach. The Court emphasized that applying these state-specific guidelines to Delhi would create an unworkable situation.
2. Precedent and Consistency in Appointment Procedure
The Court observed that the procedure followed in appointing Asthana had been consistently applied since 2006, resulting in the appointment of eight previous Commissioners of Police in Delhi. This long-standing practice, which includes inter-cadre deputation and service extensions, has not been previously challenged in court. The principle of contemporanea expositio—the interpretation of statutes based on consistent practice—was invoked to uphold the established procedure.
3. Statutory Authority and Relaxation of Rules
The Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the Transaction of Business of GNCTD Rules, 1993, empower the Central Government to appoint the Commissioner of Police. The Court acknowledged that the Central Government has the authority to relax rules under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, to address specific cases. In Asthana's case, the relaxation provisions were invoked due to the absence of suitably experienced officers in the AGMUT cadre, justifying his appointment and extension of service.
4. Public Interest Considerations
The Court accepted the Central Government's argument that Asthana's appointment was in the public interest, given Delhi's unique law and order challenges, including national security concerns and international implications. The government contended that Asthana's extensive experience in leading large police and paramilitary forces was crucial for effectively managing Delhi's complex security environment.
Legal Precedents Referenced
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): Established guidelines for the appointment of DGPs in states, emphasizing criteria like UPSC empanelment and a minimum tenure.
Union of India v. Rakesh Asthana: The Supreme Court, while deferring judgment on the applicability of the Prakash Singh guidelines to Delhi, left the legal question open for future cases, acknowledging the complexities involved.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's decision underscores the importance of administrative discretion in appointments, especially in unique jurisdictions like Delhi. While adhering to established legal principles, the Court recognized the necessity for flexibility in governance to address specific challenges. The judgment highlights the balance between legal norms and practical exigencies in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments