Supreme Court closes PIL against Rakesh Asthana's posting as Delhi Police Commissioner but...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed a plea challenging the 2021 appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner since Asthana has now retired from the post, rendering the plea infructuous [Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India]..The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, however, clarified that it has not decided on the broader legal question which arose in the case - namely, whether guidelines issued by the top court earlier on police appointments in the case of Prakash Singh & Ors v. Union Of India are binding when it comes to the selection of Delhi’s Police Commissioner..The Court added that if it came across any cases where irregularities are detected in such appointments in future, it would take judicial notice of the same. However, it decided to hold off on deciding the issue for now."We hope it doesn't happen in the future. If it does, we'll take cognizance. If we do it now it will unnecessarily create problems for many decorated officers," the Court said..The plea before the Court was filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) in 2021. The NGO had challenged Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as the Delhi Police Commissioner. This appointment was made four days before his retirement following an inter-cadre transfer from Gujarat to Delhi. CPIL argued that this violated guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case. In 2019, the top court modified a 2006 ruling in this case to clarify that persons recommended for being appointed as the chief of police (Director General of Police in States) should have at least six months left before their retirement. This guideline was violated when Asthana was appointed, CPIL contended. .When the matter was heard today, the Court noted that CPIL's plea may be infructuous now that Asthana has already completed his tenure. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CPIL, argued that the petition still raised significant concerns about executive overreach in police appointments."The whole purpose of Prakash Singh was the independence of the police from the politicians," he said. The CPIL argued that the principles laid down in this case should apply to the appointment of Delhi’s police chief as well..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union government and disagreed with CPIL's stance. He contended that the Prakash Singh ruling did not govern the selection of the Delhi Police Commissioner, adding that the appointment was made in public interest and within the legal framework..Bhushan countered that politically and bureaucratically endorsed candidates were increasingly being appointed to senior police positions, bypassing established rules.He pointed out that Asthana’s transfer from the Gujarat cadre to AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territories) cadre just four days before his retirement was a clear deviation from standard procedure.Bhushan added that Asthana's 2021 appointment violated fundamental principles governing the selection of police leadership and argued that similar executive actions had also been seen in other appointments, including that of the Chief Election Commissioner..The Court, in turn, observed that deviations from standard appointment rules may sometimes be made in public interest. However, it would also be necessary to determine whether such exceptions were legally valid, it added. "Any hard and fast criteria might be detrimental to public interest. Sometimes in situations, you may be required to deviate from the normal rules and take a decision in public interest. We are just trying to diffuse the problem here," the Court said. It eventually disposed of the petition, while keeping the questions of law open. .[Read Live Coverage].[Read Order]