The Supreme Court on Monday underscored that its contempt jurisdiction and the mechanism of public interest litigation (PIL) must not be exploited to advance political agendas. The Court stressed that political rivalries should be resolved through democratic means rather than by burdening judicial forums.
Court declines contempt plea over DGP appointment
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria dismissed a plea seeking contempt action against the Jharkhand government for appointing Anurag Gupta as the State’s Director General of Police (DGP).
“In the Jharkhand case, we do not want contempt jurisdiction to be used to settle political scores. If there is an issue with an appointment, the proper forum is the Central Administrative Tribunal. Political battles should be fought before the electorate,” the Bench observed.
PIL meant for public interest, not personal rivalries
The judges were examining issues linked to the Prakash Singh case on police chief appointments when the application against Gupta’s appointment was raised. The Court noted that the plea appeared to stem from a personal and professional dispute between Gupta and former DGP Ajay Kumar Singh, who had been replaced.
“PIL is intended to widen access to justice by allowing public-spirited persons to approach this Court. It cannot be converted into an arena for competing factions to settle scores,” the Bench remarked.
Also Read : SC to hear pleas challenging appointment of J'khand DGP on Aug 18
Suggestions for reform in DGP selection
Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, supported recommendations put forward by petitioner Prakash Singh that the appointment of State police chiefs should involve a collegium comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of the High Court, rather than the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
Singh argued that several States were elevating Additional Directors General of Police (ADGPs) to circumvent the Court’s guidelines, adding that violations had increased since judicial monitoring weakened.
Ramachandran further suggested that special benches of High Courts convene quarterly sessions to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives.
Matter to be considered in detail later
Chief Justice Gavai noted that the larger issue would be examined in depth once the Constitution Bench delivers its ruling on the scope of Governors’ powers.
Follow us
