Param Bir Singh v Anil Deshmukh "serious matter", but approach Bombay High Court first: Supreme Court to Param Bir Singh

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by former Mumbai Police Commissioner, Param Bir Singh seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations against Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh instead granting Singh the liberty to move Bombay High Court under Article 226 (.A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy observed that the allegations and counter allegations between Singh and Deshmukh are serious but the case should be heard by the High Court first.."We do acknowledge the matter is serious and affects the administration at large. But power of article 226 is wide. The High Court can deal with it," the Bench remarked. .Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Singh told the Court that he will move Bombay High Court on Wednesday itself and withdrew the plea. He asked for a direction to be issued to the High Court to hear the matter on Thursday in view of the fact that the case involves certain CCTV footage etc. The Court recorded Rohatgi's request in its order and asked him to raise the said request before the High Court. ."Senior counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court.Liberty granted.Learned senior counsel submits that they will file the petition during the course of the day and would like the matter to be taken up tomorrow itself. That, in our view, would be an appropriate prayer made to the High Court and not by a direction from this Court," the order said..The plea by Singh besides seeking CBI probe had also challenged the order passed by the State on March 17 transferring Singh from the post of Commissioner, Mumbai Police as being violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution..The plea by Singh came close on the heels of a letter written by him to Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray alleging that Deshmukh used to frequently interfere with police investigations and repeatedly call officers and give them instructions on the course of action to be followed by them while conducting investigation..The petition before the Supreme Court stated that Deshmukh had held meetings in February, 2021 at his residence with police officers including Sachin Vaze of Crime Intelligence Unit, Mumbai and Sanjay Patil, ACP Social Service Branch, Mumbai, "bypassing their seniors and had instructed them that he had a target to accumulate Rs. 100 crores every month and had directed (the police officer) to collect money from various establishments and other sources.".[BREAKING] Plea filed before Bombay High Court seeking CBI probe into allegations against Anil Deshmukh, Param Bir Singh.The plea said that such actions by Deshmukh displayed his malicious intent to extort money from establishments across Mumbai and from other sources."This shows interfering in the investigations and directing the same to be conducted in a particular manner, and corrupt malpractices in posting/transfers of officers, cannot be countenanced or justified in any democratic State," it was submitted. .The plea stated that a writ petition under Article 32 has been preferred in the Supreme Court since the State of Maharashtra has already withdrawn general consent for CBI probe within the State..BREAKING: Param Bir Singh moves Supreme Court seeking CBI probe into alleged malpractice by Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh.Singh further claimed that his transfer was against the "established principle of stability of tenure of civil servants.""It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court in the case titled T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732, it was held that such transfers are against public interest. The transfer of the Petitioner from the post of Police Commissioner, Mumbai has been done without any justifiable reasons and only upon the whims of the political executive," the petition contended. .It was his case that the transfer of police officers before completion of their tenure at the whims of the political executive "is indicative of excessive control by the political executive over the police, and has the inherent danger of making the police a tool for subverting the process of law, promoting the growth of authoritarianism and shaking the very foundations of democracy." .When the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, the Bench posed two questions:- One, Why Article 32 petition, why not Article 226? - Two, the person against the petition is filed is not even impleaded as party..On the second question, Rohatgi said that an application has already been filed for the same for making Deshmukh a party. Regarding the first question, Rohatgi said that "it is a matter of serious public interest for whole nation."."A police officer is transferred citing administrative grounds but Home minister himself said on TV that it is not an administrative transfer," he argued while also adverting to how police reforms as required by the Supreme Court judgment in Prakash Singh has not taken place in Maharashtra."That is the case with all States, not just this State," Justice Kaul responded. .Justice Kaul the proceeded to remark that the parties to the case were hunky dory for a long time before the fall out happened and the issue then came in public domain. "Now they have fallen apart and this has come up. I agree it is serious but High Court can deal with it," Justice Kaul said. .Rohatgi proceeded to cite cases which were entertained by the Supreme Court under Article 32 in the past but the Bench was not impressed. "If you give list of cases entertained under 32, I can also give cases we have relegated to High Court. The point is simple. He is making some allegations and Minister is also making some allegations. I don't see a point why you should not move High Court," Justice Kaul reiterated..The petitioner agreed and the Court passed an order that effect. .The former Commissioner of Police was transferred as Commandant General of Home Guards, Maharashtra on March 17 and he had assumed charge of the new post from the very next day.Singh’s transfer was claimed to be under administrative exigencies. According to his file, he was being transferred to “ensure a free and fair investigation in the Antilia incident.”The Antilia incident refers to the case wherein an explosive laded SUV was found outside the residence of Mukesh Ambani..Deshmukh had, in an interview on March 18, stated the following with the regard to the transfer:1. That there were serious lapses committed by the Mumbai Police and Singh in the investigation of the Antilla incident;2. The lapses could not be pardoned;3. That Singh's transfer was not on administrative grounds..The plea was filed through Advocate-on-Record Abhinay and drawn by Advocate Utsav Trivedi..A plea was also filed before the Bombay High Court by a Mumbai based lawyer, Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil seeking probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other independent agency into the allegations of malpractices against both Deshmukh and Singh..[Read Supreme Court order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.