The Supreme Court recently addressed a legal challenge concerning the appointment of ex-Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana. However, the court refrained from ruling on whether the landmark 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India applies to the appointment of the Delhi Police Commissioner.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh stated:

"The only legal issue that survives for consideration is whether the principles enumerated by this Court in Prakash Singh (I), Prakash Singh (II), and Prakash Singh (III) shall be applicable in the matter of appointment of Commissioner of Police Delhi also. While the case of the petitioner seems to be that those principles will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi...the case of Union of India is that the cited decision of Prakash Singh will not apply in the matter of deployment/posting/appointment of the officers belonging to AGMUT cadre."

Since Rakesh Asthana had retired during the proceedings, the court deemed the petition infructuous but left the legal question open for future cases.

Read Also:- 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to File Petitions Against Acquittals Within 6 Weeks

Background of the Case

Rakesh Asthana, a 1984-batch IPS officer from the Gujarat cadre, was appointed as the Delhi Police Commissioner in July 2021, just four days before his scheduled retirement. The Ministry of Home Affairs extended his tenure by one year beyond his superannuation on July 31, 2021.

Several litigants approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Prakash Singh guidelines—originally framed for appointing Directors General of Police (DGPs) in states—should also apply to the appointment of the Delhi Police Commissioner. Their main contentions were:

1. The post of Delhi Police Commissioner is equivalent to a State DGP, so Prakash Singh principles should be followed.
2. Asthana was appointed without UPSC empanelment.
3. He did not meet the requirement of having a residual service tenure of six months at the time of appointment.

Understanding the Prakash Singh Guidelines

The Supreme Court's directives in Prakash Singh set clear conditions for DGP appointments:

• The state government must select the DGP from the three senior-most officers empaneled by UPSC.
• The DGP should have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of retirement age.
• The candidate must have at least six months of service remaining before retirement.

The petitioners argued that Asthana’s appointment violated these principles since he was neither empaneled nor had the required residual tenure.

Delhi High Court’s Stand

In October 2021, the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge, ruling that Prakash Singh applied strictly to State DGPs and not to Union Territories. The court noted:

"Applying the Supreme Court’s directions to Union Territories would create an anomalous situation, as Union Territories do not have a sufficient pool of officers in the appropriate Pay-Level and with requisite experience in the AGMUT cadre."

The court further observed that Asthana had nearly 37 years of experience and was appointed due to his capability to handle Delhi’s complex law-and-order situation, which often has international implications.

Read Also:- Supreme Court: Informing Relatives About Arrest Doesn't Fulfill the Duty of Informing Arrestee of Arrest Grounds

Supreme Court's Take on the Issue

The NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s interpretation could set a precedent for future appointments, potentially violating the Prakash Singh mandate.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, emphasized:

"Paragraph 45 of the High Court judgment could impact all future appointments, making it easier to disregard the Prakash Singh principles. Any such appointment in violation of the judgment should amount to contempt of court."

Responding to this, Justice Surya Kant remarked:

"We will provide you a remedy... We hope that it does not happen in the future."

Justice Kant also noted that rigid application of guidelines might not always serve public interest:

"Sometimes, a hard-and-fast rule can create situations where deviations are necessary. Even you might agree that an appointment deviating from the rules is in the public interest."

Case Title: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 019466/2021