New Delhi: The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh on Tuesday dismissed a PIL by lawyer Sadre Alam challenging the appointment of IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as city police commissioner.
The plea filed by Sadre Alam through Advocate BS Bagga had prayed for quashing of the July 27 order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs appointing Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, and also the order granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service to him.
"The impugned orders (of MHA) are in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case as respondent no.2 (Asthana) did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months; no UPSC panel was formed for appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner; and the criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years has been ignored," the plea had submitted.
The petition had also sought further direction to initiate fresh steps for appointing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India.
The petition had sought further direction to initiate fresh steps for appointing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India
The Centre, in its affidavit, has said that the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner and the extension of his service tenure was done in public interest, keeping in mind the diverse law and order challenges faced by the national capital, which have national security implications as well as international and cross border implications.
Earlier the court has also allowed Advocate Prashant Bhushan's intervention application in the matter. The Supreme Court had asked the Delhi high court to decide within two weeks the petition filed before it challenging the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police commissioner.
Delhi Police commissioner Rakesh Asthana had told the Delhi High Court that petitions challenging his appointment are not bonafide public interest litigations but are flagrant abuse of the forum of the Court for some hidden personal vendetta to derail his career.
Asthana said that there is a malicious campaign propagated either through tweets or articles or shadow PILs against him. "This personal vendetta or a proxy war is projected under the cloak of public interest litigation," Asthana said urging the Court not to allow such attempts against him.
.png)
