ML Sharma Files Contempt Plea Against PM Modi and HM Amit Shah For the Appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner

Stating that the appointment amounts to wilful denial of the Supreme Court judgement dated 3^rd July, 2018, the plea submits that criminal contempt can be invoked as the acts of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister "have created a serious question of constitutional system itself under the Constitution and it is liable to be resolved by the court constitution bench whether these two individuals have any legal and moral right to continue in the constitutional office for the rest of their life".

It has been averred that as the Prime Minister is the head of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, the decision to appoint Asthana was jointly taken with the Home Minister, and therefore, they are liable for contempt.

The plea then lays down that Asthana's appointment is contrary to the guidelines that have been laid down in various judgements, such as Prakash Singh, and that the decision-makers "knowingly and deliberately acted against the Supreme Court judgment, therefore a serious contempt of court is liable to be proceeded against both the Respondents".

Furthermore, the plea states that the question which arises is whether the Constitution will survive the "dictatorship of government servants" and whether the two Respondents have any constitutional right to continue in their office.

In light of the above, Sharma prays for the initiation of contempt against the Respondents for contravening the directions set down in the Supreme Court judgement, and seeks for the declaration of the appointment of Asthana as illegal.

Sharma recently filed a PIL seeking a probe into the Pegasus snooping allegations. He is known for rushing to the Supreme Court with PILs in sensational matters such as Rafale deal, Article 370, Hyderabad police encounter etc. In 2018, the Supreme Court had imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him for filing a frivolous PIL against the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

In 2019, the Supreme Court had pulled up Sharma for filing a shoddily drafted petition challenging the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Recently, he had filed a petition challenging the three controversial farm laws. Also, in April he filed another PIL seeking a fresh probe into the Rafale deal in the light of reports about French investigation against Dassault. Sharma had created headlines in 2013 with his controversial remarks blaming the victim in the gruesome Nirbhaya gangrape-murder case, as a lawyer of one of the accused.