'Compelling Need To Appoint Officer With Diverse Experience' : Centre Defends Rakesh Asthana's Appointment As Delhi Police Commissioner

The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner was done in public interest owing to the reason the Delhi, being the national capital, has been witnessing law and order and policing issues having national security and cross border implications.

The Centre has also stated that a compelling need was felt by the Central Government to appoint a person as a head of the police force of Delhi, who had diverse and vast experience of heading a large police force, having political as well as public order experience of working and supervising Central Investigating Agency(s) as well as para-military forces.

The development came after the Centre filed an affidavit in the plea challenging appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner.

The petition has been filed by one Sadre Alam through Advocate BS Bagga, challenges the order dated July 27 issued by the Central Government granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service to Asthana. It emphasized that Asthana was appointed as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before he was due to retire on his superannuation on July 31.

"Delhi being the capital of the country has a specific and special requirement which witnessed certain untoward and extremely challenging public order problems/riots/crimes which have an international implication. This necessitated appointment of an experienced officer having diverse, multifarious experience of heading a Police Force in any large State/Central Investigating Agency/Para-military Security Forces etc to head the Delhi Police Force," the affidavit reads.

The Centre has also submitted that Asthana's inter-cadre deputation and relaxation, given to him under Rule 16 of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 stems out from its need in public interest.

"It was only when it was found after thorough examination of available options that the experience of handling the police force in a vast State mixed with experience of handling other investigating agencies/para-military forces was not available, the Competent Authority, in public interest, decided to propose and grant inter-cadre deputation to Respondent No.2," the affidavit reads further.

Opposing the petition, the Centre has also stated that the aforesaid plea is verbatim reproduction of a petition filed by the intervener before the Supreme Court.

"This is a gross abuse of process of law and cannot be lightly brushed aside as plagiarism. The fact that a petition is a copy-paste of another petition undisputedly show that the present petitioner has not applied his mind and the Affidavit which hides the real source of information is manifestly wrong," the affidavit reads.

Earlier, issuing notice on the petition, the Court also allowed the intervention application filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation through Advocate Prashant Bhushan.

CPIL, which had initially moved the Supreme Court challenging Asthana's appointment, has approached the High Court by way of an intervention application, claiming that the instant petition is an "ambush petition" which was a "copy-paste" from CPIL's petition.

CPIL is aggrieved by the fact that Asthana was appointed as the Commissioner just four days before his retirement, thereby extending his service beyond the date of his superannuation. It also claims that the appointment order is in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by Apex Court in the Prakash Singh case (2006) 8 SCC 1 as:

- Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months;

- No UPSC panel was formed for the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner; and

- The criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years had been ignored.

Alam in his plea has stated that Asthana's appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before he was due to retire gives a complete go-by to the statutory rules. The plea states, "the requirement for exercise of power under Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules [for relaxing the Requirement of Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 1958] is not satisfied. The impugned orders dated 27.07.2021 are the reform, completely illegal and clearly smack of mala fide, and have presumably been issued only to promote the interests of the Respondent No.2 as well as of those in the Central government."

Case Title: Sadre Alam v. UoI & Ors.