Common Cause, CPIL Projecting 'Personal Vendetta Or Proxy War' Against Me Under Cloak Of PIL: Rakesh Asthana To Delhi High Court

Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana has told the Delhi High Court that the two organizations namely Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) are projecting a personal vendetta or 'proxy war' under the cloak of filing public interest litigation against him.

In the affidavit filed by Asthana, he has also stated that the two organizations have been constantly filing petitions against him as a part of selective actions against him either out of vendetta or at the behest of some individual or their own interest.

"I state and submit that as a part of this selective campaign against me, proceedings are being consistently filed against me by these two organisations, while outside court the people having control of the said organisation spearhead a malicious campaign against me. This has been regularly happening since I was appointed as Special Director in Central Bureau of Investigation," the affidavit reads.

Asthana has filed the affidavit in the plea filed by one Sadre Alam challenging his appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner. CPIL which had initially moved the Supreme Court challenging Asthana's appointment, had 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. 

Asthana has therefore stated that the two organizations have been spreading a malicious campaign against him which is happening regularly since his Appointment as Special Director in CBI.

"This personal vendetta or a proxy war is projected under the cloak of public interest litigation. This Hon'ble Court may not allow such attempts using the august forum of this Hon'ble Court," the affidavit reads further.

In a similar development, the Centre has informed the Court that Asthana's appointment 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 petition filed by 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.

On the other hand, 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.