[Editing required] Supreme Court defers hearing plea against appointment of Delhi Commissioner Rakesh Asthana, Central Government says, "

The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred hearing in a plea against the appointment of Rakesh Asthana along with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgment of Delhi High Court upholding his appointment.

A bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna said that they intend to hear the NEET PG 2021 Counseling matter, and will hear this matter post the part-heard GST matter.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation submitted that the office report says that the affidavits have been filed by the respondents. "I can argue the matter today itself, as it'll not take much time," Bhushan added.

The affidavit submitted by the Central Government submits that "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."

Centre has submitted that "GNCT being the capital of the country has been witnessing diverse and extremely challenging situations of public order/law and order situation/policing issues which not only had national security implications but also international/cross border implications."

"As such, a compelling need was felt by the Central Government to appoint a person as a head of the police force of Delhi, who had diverse and vast experience of heading a large police force in a large State having diverse political as well as public order problem/experience of working and supervising Central Investigating Agency(s) as well as para-military forces."

"The aforesaid being the purpose and rationale for appointment of respondent no 2 to the post of CP Delhi Police, no fault can be found in his appointment which has been done in accordance with and after scrupulously following all the applicable rules and regulation," the affidavit added.

It is further submitted that "Sh. Rakesh Asthana has been given extension in his service and has been appointed as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in relaxation of Rule 16(1) of DCRB Rules 1958 invoking Rule 3 of AIS(condition of service- residuary matters) 1960 in public interest."

Whereas, Commissioner of Police, Rakesh Asthana, Delhi Police in his affidavit before the Supreme Court, stated that the Petitioner NGO & Prashant Bhushan are carrying out personal vengeance against him, hence, it is not bonafide public interest litigation but a flagrant abuse of process and forum.

Central Government also clarified that "Though we have upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of two years, we should make it clear that extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases."

Background:

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union of India submitted that the writ petition cannot be heard as the Delhi High Court has already passed a judgment upholding Asthana's appointment and that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the order of the Delhi High Court would lie before the Supreme Court.

Adv. Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner, however, sought the Court to issue notice in the matter as the petition had been filed before the Supreme Court prior to Delhi High Court deciding the issue.

Bhushan submitted that the Supreme Court had requested the Delhi High Court on August 25 to dispose of the petition in a time bound manner, as a result of which the Delhi High Court had passed its judgment on October 12. He further submitted that the petitioners in Delhi High Court had copied his petition verbatim and this forced him to intervene in the petition there.

The bench at this point questioned Bhushan if he was also going to move an SLP challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

Bhushan submitted that he will file the SLP by Monday and that the Court can list the matter subsequently.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the petitioners contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as Delhi High Court has decided the issue.

Case Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India