The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the appointment of IPS officer Rashmi Shukla as Director General of Police (DGP) in February claiming that the same was “arbitrary” and “illegal”.
The PIL, filed by advocate Pratul Bhadale, also challenged the “conditional” appointment of IPS officer Sanjay Verma as the DGP of Maharashtra till the state assembly polls, claiming it would impair his ability to function independently and effectively during the crucial election period.
The State government appointed Verma as DGP on November 5, a day after incumbent Shukla was removed on a directive of the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the November 20 state assembly polls. however, the State has said that Verma will will hold the post till the elections process is over. Meanwhile, Shukla has been sent on compulsory leave for the same duration.
Bhadale’s counsel Vineet Naik, mentioned the PIL before a bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar seeking urgent hearing considering that the elections are scheduled for November 20.
However, the bench questioned the petitioner’s locus (legal right) to file the PIL. “Who is the aggrieved party? The person who is appointed as temporary should come. He has not come. What is the public cause in this? How are you (petitioner) concerned?” the bench asked.
The judged noted that PILs are filed for those who are disadvantaged and not for IPS / IAS officers. “Someone is appointed from the cadre, how are you (petitioner) affected?” the court asked.
Further, the court remarked that if the petitioner wanted to challenge Shukla’s appointment, then he ought to have done it in February itself.
Refusing to grant an urgent hearing, the HC said: “There is no urgency. It will be auto-listed.”
The plea highlights “completely arbitrary and unacceptable digression” by the State government in appointing Shukla as DGP. Alleging that the State, in “abject defiance” of directions by ECI, appointed Verma as Director General and Inspector General of Police only for a temporary period up to the assembly elections.
On November 4, ECI communicated to the State to remove Shukla as state DGP and appoint another officer. Same day, the state informed that it has given a temporary charge to police commissioner Vivek Phansalkar as DGP and recommended three names for the post of DGP.
The ECI, on November 5, directed the State to appoint Verma as DGP.
The PIL contended: “The ECI’s communication to the state clearly mandated appointment of Sanjay Verma as DGP without any condition of the appointment being ad-hoc or temporary.” it adds that the “conditional” appointment of Verma as DGP would impair his ability to function independently and effectively during the crucial election period.
The judges, however, opined that the State had complied with the ECI’s direction. “Purpose is that the ECI has powers till the elections,” the court said.
Challenging Shukla’s appointment as DGP, the PIL said that she was due to retire in June 2024 but was granted an extension of two years in February 2024. She could not have been appointed as DGP in January this year when she had less than six months to retire, the plea said, adding that it was in contravention to judgments passed by the Supreme Court, the PIL claimed.
The PIL has sought that the HC declare Verma’s “conditional” appointment as illegal and contrary to law, and to call for all files related to his and also Shukla’s appointment and the two-year extension given to her. Pending hearing, the PIL has sought continuation of Verma as DGP.
