The Delhi High Court was informed by lawyer Prashant Bhushan that a petition has been moved by him before the Apex Court challenging the appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Police Commissioner of Delhi.
The development came after the Division Bench led by Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, which is hearing a plea challenging the appointment of Mr Asthana. The High Court had, on an earlier occasion, enquired if any petition on a similar issue is pending before any Court.
Central Government Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan expressed his lack of awareness on any such matter, as pointed out by Mr Bhushan, and sought time to seek instructions. In light of the submission made by Mr Bhushan, the Bench slated the matter for hearing on September 24.
Filed by one Sadre Alam, a practicing Advocate, through Advocate B. S. Bagga, the plea prayed for quashing of the order dated July 27, 2021, appointing Mr Asthana as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The plea also prayed for quashing of the order approving inter-cadre deputation and extension of service period beyond the date of superannuation of Mr Asthana.
Furthermore, the petition sought a direction to the Centre to make fresh appointment to the post of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the apex court in Prakash Singh case.
Also Read: FIR cannot be termed faulty, if it does not indicate the conspirators: Supreme Court
The plea alleged that on July 27, just four days before Mr Asthana was due to retire on his superannuation, an order was passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, allowing his inter-cadre deputation from Gujarat cadre to Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) cadre and extending his service tenure by a period of one year beyond the date of his superannuation, which was July 31, 2021. He was also appointed as the Police Commissioner of Delhi.
The plea stated, “The order issued by the Central Government (Respondent No 1) is, therefore, completely illegal and clearly smacks of mala fide, having been issued apparently only to promote the interests of the Respondent No 2 (Mr Asthana) as well as of those in the Central Government.”