SUPREME COURT: PIL NOT A TOOL FOR RIVAL OFFICERS TO PURSUE PERSONAL VENDETTAS:

The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be used as a means for settling personal disputes between competing officers within the government service. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, was hearing a set of contempt petitions concerning the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Jharkhand.

The petitions, filed by Babulal Marandi, Leader of the Opposition in the Jharkhand State Assembly, along with the Akhil Bharatiya Adimjanjati Bikas Samitee Jharkhand, alleged that the appointment of Anurag Gupta as DGP violated the directions issued by the Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006). They further contended that Ajay Kumar Singh had been improperly removed from the post of DGP.

While refusing to entertain these petitions, the Court observed that the present litigation appeared to be prompted by an internal dispute between two police officers rather than a matter of genuine public interest. The bench emphasized that if any officer feels aggrieved by his removal from service or denial of a legitimate claim to a post, such an officer must seek remedies available under law, such as approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal or the High Court. The Court explained that the mechanism of PIL was designed to provide access to justice to those socio-economically disadvantaged groups who are unable to approach courts themselves, and therefore could not be permitted to be misused for disputes between rival officers.

The bench also highlighted that PIL jurisdiction had been devised to dilute the strict rules of locus standi in order to allow public-spirited individuals to represent marginalized groups who lacked the means to litigate. However, the judges made clear that this jurisdiction could not be converted into a forum for power struggles among officers, nor should it be invoked at the behest of political rivals. The Chief Justice further remarked during the proceedings that police officers themselves had, in many instances, directly approached the Court, thereby rejecting the contention that such officers generally refrained from litigation.

During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the original petitioner Prakash Singh, pressed for regular monitoring of the earlier directions of the Supreme Court regarding police reforms. He pointed out that under the framework laid down in Prakash Singh, the Union Public Service Commission was to suggest three names for the DGP post, from which the State Government would choose one. He urged that the composition of the selection committee be revised to include only the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The bench, however, raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest should such matters be challenged before the same High Court in the future. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for Tamil Nadu, also intervened, suggesting the necessity of having a neutral authority involved in the process.

Prakash Singh, personally present in Court, stressed that violations of the Supreme Court’s directions had been occurring for several years largely because regular monitoring had ceased. He noted that earlier, the Court actively ensured compliance, but for nearly six years such oversight had stopped, leading to the current spate of disputes. Supporting this view, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, acting as amicus, clarified that the Court should monitor only core aspects of reform such as establishing state security commissions and police complaints authorities. He also informed the bench that he had filed an application requesting all High Courts to constitute dedicated benches for overseeing compliance with the Prakash Singh directives. The matter has now been posted for further hearing on October 27.