Lagatar24 Desk
Ranchi/Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over the use of contempt jurisdiction and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as tools for settling political disputes. A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, observed that political rivalries should be resolved before the electorate, not the courts.
Court Declines Contempt Plea Against Jharkhand Government
The remarks came while the bench refused to entertain a plea seeking contempt proceedings against the Jharkhand government over the appointment of Anurag Gupta as the state’s Director General of Police (DGP). The petition had alleged that Gupta’s appointment involved violations, but the court noted that the issue appeared to stem from a personal dispute between him and former DGP Ajay Kumar. The bench advised that such service-related concerns should be taken up before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rather than through contempt petitions.
PILs Not a Tool for Retaliation
The court emphasized that PILs are meant to serve public interest and should not be exploited for political retaliation. CJI Gavai stated that “PIL jurisdiction cannot be allowed as a means of vendetta between competing interests.” The bench reiterated that courts must safeguard the sanctity of PILs so that genuine public causes are not weakened by misuse.
Suggestions on Police Chief Appointments
During the hearing, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, acting as amicus curiae, supported the suggestion by former police officer Prakash Singh that DGP appointments should be made by a panel consisting of the Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of the High Court, instead of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Singh further pointed out that several states were bypassing Supreme Court guidelines by appointing additional DGPs, raising concerns of compliance. Ramachandran proposed that High Courts form special benches to review such appointments every three months, ensuring implementation of top court orders.
Detailed Hearing to Follow
The Supreme Court clarified that while it will not allow contempt and PILs to become instruments of political score-settling, the larger issue of DGP appointments in states will be taken up in detail after the Constitution Bench delivers its ruling on the powers of Governors.
