Challenge to appointment of Rakesh Asthana an outcome of personal vendetta: Centre to Supreme Court

The Central government has defended its decision to appoint Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner in the Supreme Court, stating that the challenge to his appointment was an outcome of a personal vendetta on the part of the petitioner, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL)..The affidavit claimed that eight Police Commissioners have been appointed since 2006 in the same manner as Asthana was appointed.."However, petitioner claims to be espousing a public cause, never considered challenging appointment of eight (8) erstwhile Police Commissioners though they were appointed in the same manner as is done in the case of Respondent No.2 Such a selective exhibition of “public interest” speaks volume about the motive behind filing present petition and Writ petition in the Supreme Court," the affidavit stated..The affidavit was filed in response to the special leave petition filed by CPIL challenging the order of the Delhi High Court, which had earlier upheld Asthana's appointment..The Centre has also claimed that several challenging incidents such as the Delhi riots of 2020 called for the appointment of an experienced officer like Asthana at the helm..Further, it contended that the prime consideration was that Delhi, being the capital of the country, had witnessed “diverse and extremely challenging" law and order and policing issues which had not only national, but also international implications..“Delhi being the capital of the country has a specific and special requirement which witnessed certain untoward and extremely challenging public order problems/riots/crimes which have an international implication. This necessitated appointment of an experienced officer having diverse, multifarious experience of heading a police force in any large State/Central investigating agency/para-military security forces, etc., to head the Delhi Police Force,” stated the Centre's affidavit..The Centre pointed out that during the appointment process, it faced a precarious situation where it found that most of the officers of the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) cadre were not having “sufficient balanced experience” of policing in a vast law and order sensitive state.The capital, it stated, was experiencing a unique situation in terms of the impact of crimes and law and order situation that had a “material effect" on the country’s image..The affidavit also referred to the Delhi High Court’s 77-page judgment, where the Bench had held that there was no violation of the Supreme Court's Prakash Singh judgment or any violation of service rules that merited the High Court's interference in his appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner.."That the Central Government exercises its power to relax any required Rules by invoking Rule 3 of Residual Rules 1960, for the purpose of ensuring that “undue hardship” is not caused in any manner in any particular case. The power of Central Government to extend the tenure of Officer working under Central Government has been recently affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08/09/2021 in WP(C) No.1374/2020 filed by Common Cause Vs UOI and others," it was further pointed out..CPIL had initially approached the Supreme Court challenging Asthana's appointment. Meanwhile, another petitioner, one Sadre Alam, had moved the High Court challenging the appointment. The Supreme Court had, therefore, kept CPIL petition pending and given liberty to the NGO to intervene before the High Court. After the High Court dismissed Alam's plea, CPIL moved the Supreme Court, which issued notice in the matter in November last year.One of the contentions raised before the High Court was that Asthana only had four days remaining until retirement when he was appointed Commissioner. It was also contended that Asthana has been appointed for one year, when the Prakash Singh judgment says it has to be for two years. As per that judgment, for being appointed as police chief, there has to be a residual tenure of six months, which was not followed in this case, CPIL contended..Notably, the High Court ruled that the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh are not applicable to the appointment of heads of police in Union Territories. Therefore, the Supreme Court's directions mandating a minimum of six months' residuary period service period before superannuation and for selection from a pool of officers empanelled by the UPSC do not apply to the appointment of DCP, the High Court held..Five reasons why Delhi High Court dismissed challenge to appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner