, said that all parties have filed their affidavits and counter-affidavits.){kind=link}
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard the challenge against the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana to the post and will further hear the matter after two weeks.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), said that all parties have filed their affidavits and counter-affidavits.
Asthana, in his affidavit, justified his appointment saying the petition against him has been filed due to personal vendetta and malicious agenda. Asthana said that this petition is not in public interest but is an abuse of process and this platform.
The Centre justified the appointment of the 1984 batch IPS officer as Delhi Police Commissioner and said that there was a need to appoint an officer like Rakesh Asthana as the chief of Delhi Police keeping in mind the extremely challenging conditions of public order in the capital and national security.
The Centre said Asthana was selected to conduct effective policing on the recent law and order situation in Delhi. He was given inter-cadre deputation and extension of service in the public interest.
The Home Ministry affidavit said there was a need for officers working in the CBI, paramilitary forces and police forces to be made available for the state which was facing various political and law and order problems. As officers with such experience were not in the present pool, it was decided to make Asthana the Delhi Police Commissioner.
Also Read: Rohini blast: Delhi Police chief Rakesh Asthana says case cracked, scientist arrested
The Home Ministry said the 2016 order of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case has also been complied with, with sufficient justification for selecting Asthana. Apart from this, the Centre said there is no procedural or legal loophole in his appointment to the post of Police Commissioner. Asthana’s appointment as Delhi Police chief three days before his retirement in July 2021, had been challenged by CPIL. The petition cites a breach of Apex Court directions requiring that an officer must have six months of service left for such an assignment.