Centre counters petition challenging Rakesh Asthana's appointment as Delhi Commissioner

The Central government filed a response to a petition on Wednesday, August 18, contesting Rakesh Asthana's appointment as Commissioner of Police in Delhi and a one-year extension of his tenure. The Union of India, through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, filed an opposition to the plea, raising the issue of locus standi of the petitioner.

Centre opposes plea

On Wednesday, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard the partial arguments. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court has directed the respondents, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the Delhi Police Counsel, to determine whether any other identical petition is pending in any other forum, among other things. The case was postponed until August 24 after the court heard part of the arguments. Sadre Alam, through Advocate BS Bagga, filed the petition.

The petition requested an appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the impugned order, dated July 27, issued by the Respondent Union of India (UOI) appointing Asthana as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, as well as a direction to the Respondent Union of India to produce the order/communication of Appointments, Committee of Cabinet vide order dated July 27, issued by it approving the inter-cadre dept.

The petitioner further sought that the Supreme Court of India issue a writ of mandamus or any other relevant writ, order, or direction to respondent number 1 to take new steps to appoint a Commissioner of Police for Delhi, precisely in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives. The petitioner stated that he filed the petition in the public interest, asserting the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Delhi Police Commissioner appointment 

The plea further sought that fresh procedures be taken to nominate the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court of India's directives. According to the petitioner, the IPS officer was scheduled to retire on July 31, 2021, due to his superannuation, but was given an inter-cadre transfer I deputation to Respondent No.2 from his Gujarat parent cadre to the AGMUT cadre (cadre for Arunachal Pradesh, Goa Mizoram other Union Territories including Delhi).

The petition read, "Because impugned orders violate a number of statutory rules and violate the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh vs Union of India regarding the eligibility, procedure for appointment and tenure of police chiefs."

It added, "Because the post of Commissioner of Police in Delhi is akin to the post of Director General of Police (DGP) of a state and he is the Head of Police Force for the NCT of Delhi and therefore, the directions concerning the appointment to the post of DGP passed by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case (supra) had to be followed by the Central Government while making the impugned appointment."

Picture Credit: ANI/Pixabay/RepresentativeImage