Rakesh Asthana Case : Supreme Court Agrees To Decide If 'Prakash Singh' Directions Apply To Delhi Police Commissioner Appointment

The Supreme Court of India on Friday agreed to the request made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan to decide whether the guidelines made under the case of Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India are applicable to the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner, even after the retirement of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by CPIL challenging Rakesh Asthana's appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner. Asthana had retired during the pendency of the matter. Asthana, a 1984-batch Gujarat cadre IPS Officer, was appointed as Delhi Police Commissioner on July 27,2021, just four days before he was scheduled to retire from service. The Union Home Ministry, which oversees the Delhi Police, granted Mr Asthana one year's extension in service "in public interest".

The plea moved through Advocate Prashant Bhushan avers that just four days before this retirement, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the order of his appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner thereby extending his service initially for a period of one year beyond the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2021. The plea states that the appointment order is in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by Apex Court in the judgement in Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India. 

What was held in Prakash Singh case?

In this case, the Supreme Court had directed that:

• DGP of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by UPSC on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the Police Force.
• The DGP should have a minimum tenure of at least two years, irrespective of his date of superannuation.
• The candidates recommended by UPSC for the said post should have a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement.

Petitioner's Submissions

The petitioner submitted that the appointment violated the judgement on following grounds–

• 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

The Delhi High Court, while rejecting CPIL's challenge, had held that Prakash Singh guidelines are applicable only to the appointments of DGPs in States and have no application for appointment of Commissioners/Police Heads of Union Territories falling under the AGMUT(Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories) Cadre.

CASE TITLE: CPIL v. UoI And Anr. WP(C) No. 881/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order