NGO drags Modi led Government and Indian Police Service Officer to India's Top Court

Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana | Photo Credit : PTI

By Vineet Malik | August 7, 2021 | London, England

The Centre For Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) drags Central Government and Rakesh Asthana – Indian Police Service Officer (IPS) to India’s top court over illegal appointment of Police Commissioner of Delhi

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court of India through Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer cum corruption crusader has alleged that, the Ministry of Home Affairs has appointed Rakesh Asthana as the Police Commissioner of Delhi in complete contravention of government rules and in gross violation of directions issued in the landmark judgment ; Prakash Singh Vs Union of India and others ruled by the top court.

Asthana was appointed as the Police Chief of India’s capital just four days prior to his retirement through an order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 27 July. He was supposed to retire from service on 31 July.

The petition filed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India predominantly calls attention to Asthana’s by passed empanelment by the Union Public Service Commission as categorically mentioned in Prakash Singh verdict.

To be eligible for the Police Chief position, Asthana as per law should have belonged to the Arunachal Pradesh – Goa – Mizoram – Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre.

Furthermore, Asthana did not have remaining tenure of six months of service at the time of his appointment as Police Chief. His appointment came to the fore that bereft him of the mandatory time frame stipulated by law.

Interestingly, Asthana is the same police officer who was entrusted with Godhra train burning case that alleged grave allegations against the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Home Minister Amit Shah.

However, Modi was later exonerated by Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Ahmedabad Metroploitan Magistrate that investigated the deaths of 58 Hindu pilgrims karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, a pilgrimage city in Uttar Pradesh state.

The PIL states, “the government rules have been given a complete go by in order to hand over the sensitive post of the Delhi Police Chief to their favored IPS officer.

Sanjiv Bhatt, a former top cop posted in Gujarat state in India had moved the Supreme Court that sought Amit Shah party in the pending petition that alleged Prime Minister Modi’s involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

However, Bhatt was later dismissed from the Indian Police Service.

India’s crime investigation agencies; Indian Police Service and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have been mired in grave controversies over not complying with the Prakash Singh verdict on police reforms ruled by the top court and ‘caged parrot and a mouthpiece’ comment also made by the top court.

In a high powered committee meeting held in May this year, the Chief Justice of India snapped the wings of Central government’s attempt to appoint Asthana as the CBI Director citing the “six-month rule” of the Prakash Singh case.

CJI Ramana made it clear that no officer with less than six months to retirement should be appointed as Police Chief.

Meeran Chadha Borwankar, former Commissioner of Police, Pune and former Director General (DG), Bureau of Police Research and Development in the recent past said, “Politicians-Police-Criminal nexus flourishes because politicians decide on posting of officers at police stations.

Politicians have clearly over-stepped and encroached upon the independence of the police and sagacity of the judiciary. They have violated the clear directions of the court in the country and done so not for the welfare of citizens, but to show their brutal power. Therefore, silence, my friends is not an option”.

Julio Ribeiro, former IPS officer opined in his piece “how Modi and Shah are out to destroy our institutions”.

Plea in the petition states to quash Asthana’s appointment as Police Chief, issued by the Central government and initiate fresh steps in accordance with the directions issued by the top court in the Prakash Singh case.