On December 16, the Supreme Court of India granted Advocate Prashant Bhushan's request for a ruling on whether the rules established in the case of Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India apply to the appointment of the Delhi Police Commissioner even after Rakesh Asthana's retirement. A bench made up of Justice PS Narasimha and Chief Justice DY Chandrachud heard the case.

The panel was deliberating a plea from CPIL that contested Rakesh Asthana's appointment as the commissioner of the Delhi Police. During the time that the lawsuit was pending, Asthana had retired. Asthana, an IPS officer from the Gujarat cadre who was born in 1984, was named the commissioner of the Delhi Police on July 27, 2021, only four days before he was due to leave the service. In the "public interest," the Union Home Ministry, which is in charge of the Delhi Police, extended Mr. Asthana's employment by one year.

The argument made by attorney Prashant Bhushan claims that the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the order appointing him as Delhi Police Commissioner just four days prior to his retirement, extending his service initially for a period of one year past the date of his superannuation on July 31, 2021. According to the argument, the appointment order violates the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in its decision in Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India in a blatant and obvious manner.

The petitioner claimed that the appointment was unlawful due to the following reasons:

●    No UPSC panel was established for the selection of the Delhi Police Commissioner, Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months, and the need for having a minimum tenure of two years had been disregarded.

●    The Delhi High Court had ruled that the Prakash Singh guidelines had no bearing on the appointment of Commissioners or Police Heads of Union Territories who fell under the AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories) Cadre and had rejected CPIL's appeal. 

CASE TITLE: CPIL v. UoI And Anr. 
Citation: WP(C) No. 881/2021