PIL In Bombay High Court Challenges Temporary Appointment Of DGP Till Completion Of State Assembly Elections

The petitioner, Pratul Ramchandra Bhadale, an advocate, challenges the State government's order dated 05 November 2024, in which Sanjay Kumar Verma was appointed as DGP for a temporary period.

The petitioner relies on the directions issued by Election Commission of India (ECI) on 05 November 2024, which mandated the appointment of Verma as DGP without any conditions on the appointment being temporary or ad-hoc.

Today, the counsel for the petitioner requested an urgent hearing. However, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar declined the request. The matter will be heard in due course.

As per the petition, the State's order appointing Verma as DGP only till the completion of the election is impermissible.

The petition states that the ECI letter dated 04 November 2024 directed to replace the previous DGP Rashmi Shukla from the post on an immediate basis. It states that despite ECI's direction to replace Shukla from the post of DGP, the State sought to negate/overrule the ECI's directions.

It is alleged that the nature of orders and communications issued in appointing Verma as DGP indicates that the State has shown favours to Shukla. The petition asserts that Shukla was ineligible to be appointed as DGP and was appointed without the sanction of competent authority.

The petition states that as per newspaper reports, Shukla has been sent on compulsory leave by the State government and will resume the post of DGP once the election is over.

The petitioner contends that Verma's temporary appointment is in defiance of the Supreme Court's guidelines in Prakash Singh & ors. vs. UOI (2006) and (2019). The petition states that in view of the guidelines in Praksh Singh, there is no concept of ad-hoc/temporary appointment of DGP.

It is stated that the State machinery and higher echelons of State administration have shown disregard to the Apex Court's guidelines and ECI directions “only to favour the officer in the good books of the said administration/dispensation.”

The petitioner asserts that the State Government lacks authority to modify ECI's direction and that it is duty bound to comply with such ECI's directions as per Article 324 of the Constitution.

The petitioner argues that Verma's conditional appointment impairs DGP's ability to function independently during the election period. Further, it creates uncertainty about the police leadership after the election period.

The petitioner thus prays for declaring the appointment of Verma only for a temporary period till the completion of the assembly election as illegal.

The petitioner also prays to call for records and files issued by the State government appointing Verma as DGP and further the appointment and extension of Shukla's tenure.

Case title: Pratul Ramchandra Bhadale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.