SC Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment of MV Rao as Acting DGP

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL filed by a social activist challenging the appointment of MV Rao as Acting DGP in Jharkhand. The PIL alleged that this appointment is a violation of the Prakash Singh case.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The PIL in question has been filed on behalf of Prahlad Narayan Singh who is a social activist. Adv. Sanchit Garga filed this on his behalf while Senior Advocate R. Venkataramani presented the case. 

He challenged the appointment of DGP Rao on the grounds of the criteria of seniority. He asserted that this appointment is a disregard for the Supreme Court’s previous orders.

He has submitted that this act of the State to appoint Rao over other senior officers demonstrates that the removal of the earlier DGP tainted by political and whimsical motives. He added that “a good officer has been made a victim of political vendetta.” 

He mentioned how Rao is fourth in seniority when one looks at the Jharkhand-cadre IPS officer. It was added that Rao was also the incumbent Director-General of Fire Services and Home Guard at the time of his appointment.

The petitioner relies on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v UOI. He alleges that by way of this appointment the State and the Union Public Service Commission violated the order of this Court.

To assert the locus standi of the petitioner his Counsel stated that he is an aspirant and resident of the state of Jharkhand and Article 32 allows him to approach the Court.

Ground of Challenge

Senior Advocates Fali S Nariman and Neeraj Kishan Kaul represented the State of Jharkhand. The challenged this PIL because this was a matter of service and the Court cannot interfere. 

Sr. Adv. Kaul referred to this PIL as proxy litigation.

Petitioner’s Prayer

The Petitioner pleads before the Court to issue adequate directions to the State Government directing them to adhere to the law laid down in the Prakash Singh v UOI case. 

Court’s Decision

The bench concurred with the argument put forth by the respondents. The CJI addressed the petitioner’s Counsel and informed him that a PIL cannot be filed if the petitioner is concerned with the matter. He was not inclined to pay heed to Counsel’s argument about the right under Article 32.

The CJI stated that PIL is for approaching the Court seeking reformations in “public cause”. However, this case is a service matter and not within the ambit of PIL. Hence, the Prakash Singh case cannot be equated with this present petition.

The three-judge bench on Supreme Court head by CJI SA Bobde dismissed this matter.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -