Rakesh Asthana appointed as Delhi CP in public interest: Centre to Delhi HC

The Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the appointment of Gujaratcadre IPC officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner 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 internationalcross border implicationsDefending Asthanas appointment the Centre in an affidavit said that it felt a ldquocompelling needrdquo to ldquoappoint 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 Agencys as well as paramilitary forcesrdquoThe Centre said his service tenure was also extended in public interest in exercise of the powers vested in the cadre controlling authorityldquoThe prime consideration for the same was that Delhi being the capital of the country has been witnessing diverse and extremely challenging situations of public orderlaw and order situationpolicing issues which not only had national security implications but also internationalcross border implicationsrdquo said the affidavit filed by the Secretary Union Home MinistryAlso Read Delhi Assembly passes resolution terming Rakesh Asthanas appointment as unconstitutionalIt explained that when a search for a suitable candidate was done in the Union Territory cadre it was felt that requisite experience was lacking in the present pool of available officersIn the affidavit filed through lawyer Amit Mahajan the Centre said no fault can be found in the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner which has been done in accordance with and after scrupulously following all the applicable rules and regulationsIt submitted that the requirement of having a certain minimum tenure has no application for appointment of CommissionersPolice Heads of Union TerritoriesldquoThe case of AGMUT Cadre in particular and Delhi Commissionerate in particular is a sui generis case so far as the appointment of Commissioner of Policehead of police force is concerned Any statutory provision or any other regime deserves to be read in such a way that a leeway is given to the Central Government in appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner Any straightjacket or paediatric approach would not be in national interestrdquo the affidavit saidThe affidavit was filed in response to a public interest litigation which has sought 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 intercadre deputation and extension of service to him just before his superannuation on July 31The Centre has contended that the plea by Sadre Alam a lawyer is an ldquoabuse of process of law and manifestly an outcome of some personal vendettardquo while submitting that a PIL in service matter is not maintainableIt said that the PIL as well as the intervention of NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation CPIL which has challenged Asthanas appointment before the Supreme Court ldquodeserves to be dismissed with exemplary costsrdquoldquoThe petitioner and the intervener are mere busy bodies Both the petitioner and more particularly the intervener who 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 No2 AsthanardquoSuch a selective exhibition of public interest speaks volume about the motive behind filing this petitionintervention applicationwrit petition in the Supreme Court respectively by the petitionerintervener only in case of the Respondent No 2rdquo the affidavit saidThe Centre alleged that the petition before the high court was a ldquoverbatim reproductionrdquo of the interveners plea before the top court and said that such a conduct ldquocannot be lightly brushed aside as plagiarismrdquoThe petition has contended that the appointment of Asthana is in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case as the officer does not have a minimum residual tenure of six months and no UPSC panel was formed for his appointment of Delhi Police CommissionerIt also contended that the HighPowered Committee comprising the Chief Justice of India Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition in its meeting held on May 24 2021 rejected the Central governments attempt to appoint Asthana as the CBI Director on the basis of the sixmonth rule as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh caseThe appointment of Asthana to the post of Commissioner of Police Delhi must be set aside on the same principle it saidThe petition with similar prayers which has been filed by CPIL before the Supreme Court has urged to direct the central government to produce the July 27 order it issued approving the intercadre deputation of Asthana from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT cadreThe petition has also urged the apex court to set aside the Centres order to extend Asthanas service periodOn August 25 the Supreme Court had asked the high court to decide within two weeks the plea pending before it against the appointment of the senior IPS officer as Delhi Police CommissionerThe matter was listed for hearing on Thursday but the concerned bench was not available and now it will be heard on September 20This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever