Ground Report | New Delhi: Filing of PILs; The Center on Monday told the Delhi High Court that filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has become an industry and a career in itself. It argued that there was no need for any interference in the appointment of Gujarat-cadre IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before a bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel, “Public interest litigation is an industry, a career in itself, which was not envisioned.” The bench reserved its order on the PIL filed by advocate Sadr Alam against the appointment of Asthana.
Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that Asthana was appointed as the Delhi Police Commissioner after following the due process applicable in the national capital. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Asthana, claimed before the bench that the petitioner was a proxy for someone who does not want to appear and has a personal vendetta.
Both the Center and Asthana objected to the intervention petition filed by the Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), which has already moved the Supreme Court against the appointment. Senior advocate Rohatgi said, “Neither the petitioner nor the interventionist is entitled to be heard by the court on account of malicious conduct.”
Filing of PILs
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, said the stand of the Center that it did not find any qualified officer in the cadre of the Union Territory for appointment as Delhi Commissioner was surprising and had a disheartening effect.
Advocate BS Bagga, appearing for the petitioner, denied the allegations of malpractice and argued that Asthana’s appointment was not in consonance with the established service law.
Asthana, a 1984 batch IPS officer, was appointed as the Commissioner of Delhi Police on July 27. Prior to this, he was working as the Director-General of the Border Security Force and his term was ending on July 31.
Asthana’s appointment has been challenged on the ground that it is in violation of the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment in Parkash Singh Vs Union of India, which held that only that officer would be considered for the post of Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police. Who should have at least six months left in retirement?
In the petition, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the July 27 order by the Ministry of Home Affairs appointing Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner and granting him inter-cadre deputation and extension. The Supreme Court had on August 25 asked the Delhi High Court to decide the pending petition challenging the appointment of senior IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner within two weeks.
Earlier on August 18, the Center had objected to the petition challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana in the High Court. The Center had said that the Delhi Police works in a very different way and the Supreme Court’s decision in Parkash Singh vs. Government of India is not applicable in this case.
The Center in its affidavit has said that the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner was done in the public interest keeping in mind the various law and order challenges being faced by the national capital, which include national security as well as the international border.
Defending Asthana’s appointment, the Center said an urgent need was felt to appoint a person who has diverse and vast experience of leading a large police force in a large state as the head of the Delhi Police force. Was. Also who had the experience of working and supervising various political as well as public order problems of the state, Central Investigation Agency as well as para-military forces.
It is known that the Delhi Assembly has also passed a resolution against the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner.