Thread by @barandbench

#DelhiHighCourt hears plea challenging the appointment of #RakeshAsthana as Delhi Police Commissioner.

Adv BS Bagga: Last time lordships had a query about "supertime" scale.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

The matter is before Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh

Bagga: I am relying on Prakash Singh judgment. Union is saying it doesn't apply to Union Territory. But please see para ...

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga refers to UOI's affidavit: They have extracted the relevant portion of Prakash Singh. Page number 12

CJ: In our copy page number is not given.

Counsel: It is in running page 286.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga reads from the judgment extract referred to, which also refers to "Union Territory."

Bagga: They have mentioned to whom it is applicable (refers to various categories of personnel). Again judgment says, the aforesaid directions shall be complied by Central, State, and UT

Bagga: I just want to rely on para 26 also.

Bagga reads the extract referred to from Prakash Singh judgment. Submits, it applies to Police Chief as well.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga: Above (the rank of) SPs, this judgment is applicable to all. Chief of Police in Delhi is Commissioner, Respondent number 2 (Asthana).

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga: The order has been passed under compliance of Rule 16(1). In 16 (1) the DGP has not been covered. So they are saying in the order, this 16 (1) rule has been relaxed. When it doesn't even apply to DGP, how is it relaxed for the DGP?

(Rule 16 relates to retirement age)

Bagga reads Rule 16.

Bagga refers to the challenged order dt July 27, deputing Rakesh Asthana and extending his service for a period of one year beyond retirement age or until further order.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga contends that such relaxation of retirement of age cannot be extended citing Rule 16 (1) when Rule 16 does not cover DGP.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga: In the counter of the union, they have made some objections. They say PIL is not maintainable since it is a service matter. This is a writ of quo warranto ... writ of quo warranto is permissible in service matters (relies on a judgment)

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

CJ: If you are relying on a judgment, please read it. If you are not, we will not note down also! ... Which para should we note down?

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

CJ: You can't say, 'you find out from the whole judgment'. You should have brought paragraphs. You bring original copy and point out para.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga reads certain issues raised by UOI.

Bagga: In 2006, the Union in Prakash Singh, they have not even mentioned this practical problem then before the Supreme Court

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga refers to Delhi Police Act and GNCTD Rules of 1993 cited. Says 2006 judgment of Prakash Singh will prevail.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Appointment of Delhi Police Chief has to be done following Prakash Singh case, forming a panel. Adds that Union would have to address any practical difficulties, Bagga submits.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

CJ again tells Adv Bagga that he will not note down any judgment which is not read and only cited.

Bagga reads an extract of a judgment, which refers to Prakash Singh judgment.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Appointment of DGP of a State should be purely on merits and to insulate the officer from any influence, should get TWO years of service, regardless of superannuation: Bagga reads from judgment

Bagga adds that Asthana was given 1 year extension

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga reads from a para that speaks against the appointment of officers who are on verge of retirement.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga: The judgment is saying "minimum residual tenure of six months" should be there. Here, four days before the retirement, the appointment is made. This is bad in law.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bagga concludes.

CJ: Anyone else want to argue

Adv Prashant Bhushan: In para 3 of UOI's affidavit, they have said something interesting and intriguing.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: They say "I state and submit... to oppose petition... it is a verbatim reproduction of petition by intervenor before SC... this is a gross abuse.. cannot be lightly brushed aside... shows that petitioner has not applied its mind..."

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: The PIL violates many rules, such as disclosing source of information. Quite apart, it was a copy paste, apparently the original petition contained my name also.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: Thereafter, when objection was raised by registry, he corrected those. Unfortunately, he could not correct any of the typographical errors.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan reads from UOI affidavit that even if petition is dismissed with costs, the benefit should not go to the intervenor.
#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Are they meaning to say if my pending petition in SC is heard quickly, some benefit would go to CPIL?, Bhushan asks.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: They first seek dismissal of the petition but then they say the benefit of dismissal should not go to CPIL which has filed in SC? It is quite astounding

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

CJ asks how the petitioner could have got a copy of CPIL's plea in the first place.

Bhushan: When I file an important PIL, the media asks for a copy ...

Bagga interjects, seeks to make a submission. Court asks him not to interrupt.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Court asks Bhushan to continue arguments.

Bhushan submits that CPIL had challenged Rakesh Asthana's appointment as DCP on three grounds, the first being on the basis of Prakash Singh judgment, which UOI says is not applicable.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: Prakash Singh, the 2006 judgment, which we have quoted. If your Lordships take Sadre Alam's petition, it is quoted at page ... 30, para 31...

Bhushan reads the paragraph.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan reads from Supreme Court clarification that someone on verge of retirement cannot be appointed.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: They say he has to be selected from three senior officers empanelled.. first UPSC must select and prepare a list of officers empanelled on basis of length of service, record etc. for heading the police force.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: Police Commissioner heads the Delhi Police. The govt can select from the three names, but the three names have to come from UPSC. UPSC did not play any role in this matter. UPSC was never consulted.

This is another violation, Bhushan says

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: They clearly contemplate that the directions are for all State Police Chiefs. He may be called a Police Commissioner rather than "DGP" in Delhi, but he is a Police Chief. Clearly, Prakash Singh contemplated, that's why they said Union Territory also.

#RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: Again and again they are saying these directions apply to Union Territories also. Merely because the final operative directions say that they apply to DGP (it does not mean it does not apply to DCP, Delhi).

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

CJI pointed out that directions in Prakash Singh that appointee should have residual tenure of six months was not complied, that is why High-Powered Committee rejected the name of Rakesh Asthana as CBI Chief, Bhushan argues

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

UOI has not denied that this is why Rakesh Asthana's name was rejected unanimously when it came to the appointment of CBI Chief, Bhushan argues.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

They have appointed him for one year, when this judgment says it has to be for 2 years. Third violation, for being appointed as Police Chief, you need residual tenure of 6 months. This was the reason his name was rejected for CBI director: Bhushan

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: UOI says first, appointment committee of cabinet has conveyed for inter-cadre transfer; 2 they extend his service initially for a period of 1 year or further orders, in relaxation of Rule 16. The 3rd thing, he is therefore appointed as Police Commissioner

#RakeshAsthana

Bhushan: Both these things are hit by the Rules, as well as his extension of service for one year.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: There are at least three judgments we have mentioned which deal with the power of relaxation. First is Sayyad Ali Rizwi v. UOI. These judgments say "undue hardship" means "undue hardship" for the officer.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: Govt says there is no officer who is competent in the AGMUT cadre, who is competent enough to be appointed as Commissioner of Delhi Police. They say that #RakeshAsthana is the only officer they could find who is fit to be appointed, throughout the country, as DCP.

Bhushan: Therefore, they say there is no need to consult the UPSC etc.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: (UOI says) "We feel there is no officer in the AGMUT cadre who is fit enough to be appointed DGP" - this was a decision to be made by the UPSC!

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: I could have understood if UPSC said (that there is no other competent officer). Where is the question of Govt of India itself deciding? That is to be decided by UPSC!

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: It is astounding for so many years, officers have been appointed from AGMUT. Just see the demoralizing effect that would have on AGMUT cadre to be told there is no one in your cadre fit enough to be appointed as DCP!

@pbhushan1

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: ... that they have to bring an officer from Gujarat who is retiring in four days!

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan refers to the three judgments mentioned by intervenor CPIL in its plea. All of them state that relaxation of the retirement age may be done if it causes hardship to the CANDIDATE, not the govt.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan reads rules regarding extension of service for certain categories of personnel.

Bhushan: This doesn't apply to police chief. It only applies to few posts, to which this gentleman does not belong.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

There are only few categories, and that is also subject to the ground that they are already holding this post! You can't bring someone from another cadre and give him a post by extension, Bhushan argues.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

There are 2 rules, Rule 56 of the fundamental rules and Rule 16. Both say the same thing. Relaxation is only for individual hardship. There was no qn of granting him an extension or granting him an extension by bringing him to a new post!: Bhushan

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan sums up the grounds for challenging #RakeshAsthana appointment as Delhi Commissioner of Police:

1. Violation of Prakash Singh (three grounds);
2. Violation of two rules (mentioned above);
3. Violation of rules on inter-cadre transfer.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

There is no question of inter-cadre transfer, Respondent 2 (Rakesh Asthana) has already reached super-time scale, Bhushan contends.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: He is in level 17. There is no question of any inter-cadre deputation. Now what they say is, and this is their trump card, they say we have earlier also done these violations. 'similar violations of the rule we have done' ...for 4 officers

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: The fact that they have flouted or violated these rules earlier, whether it's Rule 56 or any other rule or Prakash Singh's Judgment earlier - does not give them license to violate and flout it!

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: Here, it is so egregious. Four days before retirement, you first grant him inter-cadre transfer, extend his service and appoint him all in one day in violation of all rules, Prakash Singh judgment.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bhushan: This appointment is totally and grossly illegal and therefore, it deserves to be quashed. I have already pointed out that our petition is pending in SC. This petition before this court is complete copy-paste, but Lordships may take a view

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Adv ML Sharma seeks to interject, makes arguments about plea, says each petitioner should use own creativity

CJ: It is his matter, he has copied, we will see what we will do. You are assisting the petitioner?

Sharma: Of course

CJ: We are not allowing, he is capable of arguing

CJ: We are not allowing two lawyers for one petitioner. court master, please mute him. 100 persons are watching this.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakesAsthana

SG Tushar Mehta argues for UOI, says that plagiarised petition is an abuse of process of law and a manifest outcome of personal vendetta. Adds that if petition is shared in media, it would not lie in mouth of intervenor to object it was copied.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

SG Tushar Mehta reads: Intervenor and petitioner are mere busybodies. Intervenor selectively files for reasons that are not comprehensible. The role of such busybodies must come to an end.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Intervenor may have some personal vendetta against Respondent 2 (Asthana) but PIL is not the route ... , Mehta reads from affidavit

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta reads from a judgment that says that the real face of motivated PIL petitioners is not often revealed.

Mehta: When they were arguing, they say 'they are other good officers'. Are they the officers who are actually aggrieved?

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: This has spawned an industry of vested interest in litigation. PIL is an industry. It is a career by itself, which was not envisaged by the Constitution.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Time and again Supreme Court has taken view that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Some citizens of this country have a desire to run the govt, they fulfill their unfulfilled desires by such PILs saying 'why this appointment is wrong, why this policy is wrong' - that is for elected govt, Mehta argues.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Selecting 'A' over 'B' is not ground for the Court to intervene, Mehta argues.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Lawyer appearing for intervenor chooses not to challenge the appointment of eight other CPs, that aggravates the need for examining motives, Mehta argues.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta refers to Prakash Singh Judgment, which refers to "DGP" to be selected by "State."

Mehta: This for the State, not UTs.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Kindly see the last part. The directions would apply to Centre, State and Union Territory "AS THE CASE MAY BE" All directions are not applicable to UT.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Supreme Court never directed that all directions should be complied by everyone.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: This is the judgment of Supreme Court delivered in 2006. How stakeholders have interpreted this judgment indicates how judgment has been accepted, to mean what it means.

Mehta refers to doctrine of "contemporanea expositio"

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: This is how the judgment has been interpreted by Central Govt, State govt, UPSC

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: After judgment in Prakash Singh I, UPSC issued guidelines. I have made a statement on oath that these guidelines have been followed from 2006 onwards till date.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: These guidelines were placed before Supreme Court by UPSC in Prakash Singh and no one has objected that this is a wrong understanding.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Delhi has a different status (from State). It is a UT.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Delhi is a part of AGMUT cadre, that is all UTs together. There is no State cadre (for Delhi)

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: There is no sanctioned cadre for Delhi (alone) ... In the case of Delhi, it is impossible to have a panel of three. That is why Supreme Court says... "as the case may be."

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Union Territories are categorically kept out of the purview of the Prakash Singh judgment. Why it was kept out? Come to page... This again is not disputed by both 'public-spirited citizens'.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta reads: It is only in Delhi, the highest post, CP is level 17. For all others, the head is below level 17. In Arunachal, Mizoram he can be 16. In Dadra 13 etc.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Since long, this is the (practice) ... Since 1978, under Delhi Police Act.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta continues reading: ... You can't compare Delhi Police Commissioner with any other Commissioner ...

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: What is being expected is impossible to perform. We don't have the pool of officers (to form a panel of three).

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta argues that this is why it was never insisted by UPSC that the Centre has to follow the process of empanellment when it comes to appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: UPSC, which objects if there is a deviation by States, they have never objected. Eight appointments (of Police Commissioners) have been made after the Prakash Singh case.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: ... This is why there is a special Delhi Police Act, and special rules are there for appointment Delhi Police Commissioner ...

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta refers to contentions regarding inter-cadre transfer.

Mehta: His case is that an officer who is below pay level 14 can only be brought on an inter-cadre deputation and since Asthana is above level 14, it would not apply. How wrong this is

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta refers to the Inter-cadre deputation policy, framed in 2018 and in vogue.

In all cases of inter-cadre deputation, wherever relaxation of these guidelines is required, the case will be put up to a committee ... : Mehta reads.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta refers to clause (c) of the rule: If we read it in isolation, any officer above level 14 is not entitled to inter-cadre deputation. But it has to be read with a preceding clause (a), which is an "overarching" relaxation clause.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: It is a general power, in a given set of facts, you can relax the guideline 2(1)

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: The Central govt has time and again given inter-cadre deputation who have reached pay level 14 and above. There has never been any dispute regarding the central govt's power to do the same.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: It is not something that has happened for the first time. The 2018 office memorandum is not under challenge. Because only an affected party can challenge. Not a PIL petitioner.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: Neither has there been a lack of competence, nor there is any procedural irregularity to give inter-cadre deputation to R2 (Asthana)

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: The task of finding a suitable IPS officer having multifarious experience, paramilitary experience... was (examined) by the competent authority by options available in AGMUT cadre.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

We may have had some officers in mind. Govt examined all of them (in AGMUT), then came to the decision that it may not be best to entrust the sensitive task to any of them, Mehta says

In public interest, it was decided that #RakeshAsthana be appointed, he adds

#DelhiHighCourt

Mehta challenges Bhushan's contention that relaxation of retirement age for "hardship" refers to candidate's hardship.

Mehta: Age of retirement can never pose a hardship (to candidate). It has to be interpreted as hardship of govt. Can a rule be read in such a truncated fashion?

Mehta: I have pointed out that exercising the same powers, following the same procedure - these are the officers appointed as Commissioners of Police up till now.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: These are the officers in whose case, there is an exercise of powers of Rule 3. It is not being used for the first time in R2's (Asthana) case.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: The very fact that the same procedure is following 8 times after Prakash Singh and has never been questioned by neither petitioner nor intervenor is ground enough to contend that there is something further than 'public interest'.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Considering the particular position of Delhi, when a candidate has been appointed on subjective satisfaction in exercise of available powers, it cannot, in a PIL, be a subject matter of judicial review, Mehta says.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: It can be (subject to judicial review) if a potential candidate comes and says I am aggrieved.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta says he agrees with Bhushan on one count: Fundamental Rule 56 is not followed.

(But that is) because it is not applicable. Because it has been incorporated in Rule 16 and there is a provision for extension in Rule 16.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Mehta: That Rule has no application because, for all India officers, Rule 56 is verbatim incorporate in Rule 16 of All India Services rules

Mehta concludes.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi informs that he appears for Rakesh Asthana.

CJ: We will continue after recess. 2.15.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Bench has risen for lunch break. Hearing to slated to continue at 2.15 pm.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

[Rakesh Asthana appointment] PIL has become an industry, a career: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to Delhi High Court

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt @pbhushan1

Read story: bityl.co/8rPi

Hearing resumes.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi: I appear milord for R2, the selected incumbent (Rakesh Asthana)

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Rohatgi: The PIL filed by Mr Alam is not milord a genuine PIL, apart from the fact that PILs are not maintained in service matters. This PIL is a proxy for someone who does not want to come in the front.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Rohatgi: The only disclosure (in petition) is that the petitioner is an advocate. Apart from this, there is nothing in the petition. There is nothing to say how he is concerned by the selection. What is troubling the petitioner except to say he is an advocate?

#RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi (refers to judgment): Kindly mark the nature of directions issued ... See no. 4. "Court will be prima facie satisfied of the correctness of the contents of PIL." There is no correctness, he has only copied Bhushan's PIL.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: There is no public interest. There is no gravity, there is no urgency, there is no public interest.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Court should ensure there is no personal claim in PIL, should ensure that it is meant to prevent public harm. What is the public harm? He (Rakesh Asthana) has an unblemished service, was appointed keeping in mind the requirements for Delhi Police Commissioner, Rohatgi argues.

Rohatgi: There are two organisations, Common Cause and CPIL who are professional public interest litigants and only one or two individuals control it, including Mr. Bhushan

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: I say there is a personal vendetta. When I was earlier appointed as Special Director CBI, the cases that were filed against me, dismissed, and curative has been filed, I don't know what happened

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: A writ petition (was filed) for my removal and Spl Director and on alleged corruption charges. While they are filing petitions, they are also on social media. This is to be deprecated.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: Your Lordships will be pleased to find the tweets of Mr Bhushan on Social Media when I was made Special Director .... (reads) "seems Modi likes people who figure in diaries..."

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi reads a tweet by Adv Prashant Bhushan which said 'Supreme Court would be remembered for three notorious judgments.'

Rohatgi: Apart from anything it is gross contempt. I don't think your Lordship should entertain anything from him. One of the judgments is Asthana.

Rohatgi refers to more tweets by @pbhushan1 : This is the way he has referred to the Prime Minister! Scant respect for the Supreme Court, the bureaucracy, for the Prime Minister. Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be abused by people of this stature!

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: Neither the petitioner nor the intervenor is entitled to be heard by this Court because of their malafide and motivated conduct. And no person can be allowed to carry on a campaign on social media, at the same time prosecute legal cases!

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: That is something to be shunned! If he wants to go to social media, he should not come to court.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Prakash Singh judgment directions are only for full States which have DGP. Not meant for Delhi, which has a commissionerate. The appointment is to be made in consultation with LG. None of this applies to appointment of DGP, Rohatgi argues.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Delhi doesn't have a full-fledged cadre. It has a cadre with other Union Territories. Officer appointed needs to deal with peculiarities of Delhi. That is why there was a need for inter-cadre transfer, Rohatgi argues.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi supports SG Mehta's argument that "hardship" for relaxation of retirement age does not refer to "hardship" of candidate.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: Hardship is the hardship of situation. Hardship is that there was no suitable officer. Hardship is faced by the authority for appointment.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: What we normally find is, if someone is being appointed to a high post, competitors lose no time to go to court. There is no competitor challenge in this case.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: The appointment of DGP Punjab was challenged by three of his peers, by following this Prakash Singh rule. Judgment is awaited from Supreme Court. People are always aggrieved if someone at the same level is ... service jurisprudence is only that.

Rohatgi: But here there is no challenge! Why is that? They are all people educated, at the pinnacle of career. No one has challenged because the power of appointment, of inter-cadre transfer is there.

#DelhiHighCourt #RakeshAsthana

Rohatgi: No other competitor thought himself fit enough to say this is bad and I'm better. Why should this court entertain the PIL in the case of Alam, who has copied the petitioenr, and of Bhushan, who has carried a social media campaign without any purpose.

#RakeshAsthana

Adv Bagga objects to allegation that Sadre Alam (petitioner) plea is copied: Bhushan's petition in Supreme Court was filed on Aug 6. Was lying in objections, on 18th, I filed. Till then also, it was not listed in Supreme Court.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Bagga: Supreme Court, while referring to this court, has mentioned that the petitioner of Mr. Sadre Alam should be heard and Mr. Bhushan can intervene and make his arguments. May I read the order?

CJ: No, we will see.

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

[Breaking] #DelhiHighCourt reserves judgment in challenge to the appointment of #RakeshAsthana as Delhi Police Commissioner after hearing all parties at length.

Hearing over.

[Breaking] Rakesh Asthana appointment challenge: Delhi High Court reserves order

report by @meera_emmanuel

#RakeshAsthana #DelhiHighCourt

Read story: bityl.co/8rRv