The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a plea for early listing of a PIL seeking contempt proceedings against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, home minister Amit Shah and the Union home ministry over the appointment of IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as the police commissioner of Delhi.
The petition, filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, has contended that the appointment of Asthana four days before his retirement was in gross violation of Supreme Court directives.
A bench of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and Justice V. Surya Kant asked Sharma to furnish the number of the petition so that it can be considered for “urgent listing”.
“We will see… let it be numbered first,” CJI Ramana said.
The petition, besides seeking contempt action against the Prime Minister and the home minister, has claimed that they had lost the moral and constitutional right to continue in office, having violated the Supreme Court’s directions.
Sharma pleaded that the appointment should be examined by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court having a minimum of five judges to settle the law on the matter, arguing that otherwise there would be a constitutional breakdown and people would lose faith in the country.
Sharma, who had earlier filed a plea seeking a probe by a special investigation team into the Pegasus snooping controversy, alleged that Asthana’s appointment had been a breach of Supreme Court rulings that all vacancies must first be notified to the Union Public Service Commission six months in advance and that no officer who has less than six months’ service left will be appointed as a director-general of police (DGP).
Asthana was appointed as the commissioner of Delhi police, which reports to the Union home ministry, four days before his scheduled retirement on July 31, and was granted a year’s extension of service. The Delhi police commissioner’s rank is equivalent to that of a DGP.
Sharma has named the Prime Minister as respondent No. 1, the home minister as respondent No. 2, and the Union home ministry as respondent No. 3 for what he called “wilful denial” to comply with the Supreme Court’s rulings.
“Respondent No. 1, the head of the ACC (appointments committee of the cabinet), and respondent No. 2… jointly decided and did the impugned appointment against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence they are party to this for contempt of court,” the petition stated.
The PIL recalled that on July 3, 2018, the Supreme Court had in the Prakash Singh vs Union of India case prohibited the appointment of an officer with less than six months of service left as DGP.
Sharma said that on July 27 this year, the appointments committee of the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister appointed Asthana as the Delhi police commissioner for one year.
The petitioner contended that the action of the Union government amounted to contempt of court and cited the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and a number of earlier Supreme Court judgments wherein it had been stated that “civil contempt refers to wilful disobedience to any judgment of the court, while criminal contempt can be invoked if an act tends to scandalise or lower the authority of the court or tends to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice”.
Sharma claimed that the appointment was a case of both civil and criminal contempt.
