The Supreme Court on Wednesday termed as “quite serious” the allegations against Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh of compelling police personnel to collect a monthly extortion money of Rs 100 crore from business houses, but refused to order a CBI probe into the allegations.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, while expressing disappointment that none of the governments in the country had bothered to insulate the police force from political or extraneous influence in terms of its 2006 Prakash Singh vs Union of India case, however, asked former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh to approach Bombay High Court with his plea.

Singh had sought a CBI probe into the alleged conduct of Deshmukh. He was represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi.

The court also noted that Singh’s present petition was a fallout of their internal differences which has now surfaced in the open.

In a written order, the bench said: “….On further hearing, we put to learned senior counsel as to why the petition should not have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court as the powers thereunder, if any, are wider. If investigation by an independent agency is being sought for, that is a relief which can also be granted by the High Court. There have also been subsequent developments in the matter as has been noticed in terms of the report of Ms Rashmi Shukla, Commissioner, State Intelligence Department.

“The High Court has the requisite authority to address the same. We have no doubt that the matter is quite serious and affects the administration at large. It also appears that a lot of material which has come in public domain is a consequence of the personal falling out.

“Learned senior counsel also seeks to rely upon the judgment in Prakash Singh & Ors (Others) vs Union of India & Ors (2006)... In our view, this is only a mantra recited periodically, wherever the occasion so suits, and there has been no seriousness by all concerned to ever implement the directions enshrined in the judgment. These directions were based on the principle of insulating police machinery from political/executive interference to make it more efficient and to strengthen the rule of law.

“It appears that none want to give up, inter alia, the control of police transfers or implement measures that would insulate the police machinery from performing its role without any uncalled for interference. In view of the aforesaid position, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court. Liberty granted.

“Learned senior counsel submits that they will file the petition during the course of the day and would like the matter to be taken up tomorrow itself. That, in our view, would be an appropriate prayer made to the High Court and not by a direction from this Court. Pending applications stand disposed of.”