SC to hear NGO's pleas challenging Asthana's appointment as Delhi police commissioner on January 11

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear the pleas of an NGO challenging the appointment of senior IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi police commissioner on January 11.

A bench of justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said due to a paucity of time, it would not take up the matter for hearing and would list it on January 11 for final disposal.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, ''Centre for Public Interest Litigation'', said counter-affidavits have been filed by the Centre and Asthana and now, he would like to argue the matter.

In its affidavit, the Centre has said the NGO's petition is an abuse of the process of law and manifestly, an outcome of some personal vendetta against the incumbent police commissioner.

''This becomes clear from the fact that though the petition is based on Prakash Singh (a 2006 verdict of the apex court), eight IPS officers have been appointed by the Centre as police commissioners of Delhi by the very same procedure which has been followed while making the appointment in the present case,'' it said.

''In the instant case, Rakesh Asthana, IPS, has been granted extension of service and has been appointed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi initially for a period of one year beyond the date of superannuation on July 31, 2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier in relaxation of 16(1) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 as a special case in public interest,'' it added.

The affidavit said the NGO that claims to be espousing a public cause never considered challenging the appointment of the eight previous police commissioners though they were appointed in the same manner as was done in the case of Asthana. ''Such a selective exhibition of 'public interest' speaks volume about the motive behind filing the present petition and a writ petition in the Supreme Court,'' it said, adding that the petitioner, being a ''busy body'', keeps on selectively filing petitions and such selection of public interest is for reasons that are beyond comprehension.

The government said since there exists sufficient irrefutable reasons that give rise to extremely serious concerns regarding the purpose, motive and bona fide of the petitioner, therefore, it is advised not to annexe the decision-making process as a part of this affidavit.

''The deponent, however, states that the detailed rationale behind appointment of the Respondent No. 2 to the post of CP Delhi Police, his inter-cadre deputation and the extension of service given to him forms part of the original file. The deponent undertakes to place the original file for the perusal of this court during the course of the hearing of the present matter,'' it said.

It, however, said a bare perusal of the reasons provided in the original file manifests that both the inter-cadre deputation as well as the extension of service were granted to Asthana by the Centre in public interest.

The Centre said as such, a compelling need was felt by it to appoint a person as a head of the Delhi Police, who had diverse and vast experience of heading a large police force in a large state that had diverse political as well as public order problems or experience of working and supervising a central investigating agency as well as paramilitary forces.

''...it was felt that requisite experience of working and supervising the central investigating agency/para-military force and police force of a large state having diverse political and law-and-order problem was lacking in the present pool of available officers and hence, in public interest, a decision was made by the central government to have an officer who had experience in all the above fields to supervise the Delhi Police and to provide effective policing on the recent law-and-order situation which arose in the National Capital Territory of Delhi,'' it said.

The Centre said no fault can be found in Asthana's appointment, which was done in accordance with and after scrupulously following all the applicable rules and regulations.

In his affidavit, Asthana said he was appointed as the police commissioner of Delhi by following the statutory procedure prescribed under the Delhi Police Act, 1978, read with the Transaction of Business of GNCTD Rules, 1993.

''The conduct of the petitioner herein in maligning the image of Respondent No. 2 ever since his appointment in the Central Bureau of Investigation is evident from the following facts and it can be satisfactorily concluded that the petitioner is carrying out personal vengeance against the Respondent No. 2. These petitions are, therefore, not bona fide public interest litigations but are a flagrant abuse of process...,'' he said.

Referring to the pleas moved in the top court against him by the NGO, Asthana said these petitions were followed by a scathing social media campaign against him, maligning his reputation, which corroborates his apprehension that these challenges to his appointment were solely a result of some personal vendetta.

''This sustained and strategic maligning of the answering respondent's character further goes on to show the mala fide agenda of the present petitioner in carrying out a personal vendetta against the answering respondent. Hence, the present petition is another attempt in furtherance of the personal vendetta and is not even remotely in the interest of the general public,'' he said.