PIL Cannot Be Used As A Mechanism To Settle Scores Between Competing Officers : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used to settle scores between competing government officers. The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging the violation of the directions given in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 1 by...
The Supreme Court recently held that the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used to settle scores between competing government officers.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging the violation of the directions given in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 1 by the Jharkhand Government while appointing the DGP.
The contempt petitions were filed by Babulal Marandi, the leader of the opposition in the Jharkhand State Assembly, as well as Akhil Bharatiya Adimjanjati Bikas Samitee Jharkhand. They alleged that the appointment of Mr Anurag Gupta as the DGP of Jharkhand violated the Prakash Singh directions.
They also alleged that one Shri Ajay Kumar Singh was unauthorizedly removed from the post of Director General of Police in Jharkhand.
Refusing to entertain the contempt petitions filed, the Court observed :
"The present lis appears to be prompted by a dispute between the two officers of the Police Department, namely, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh and Shri Anurag Gupta."
The Court explained :
"If a person is aggrieved by any action of the State with regard to his illegal removal from the service or due to denial of his legitimate claim to a post, such an officer can very well take recourse to the remedies available to him in law."
The bench added that the PIL mechanism was only for those who were socio-economically deprived of approaching the courts.
"Public Interest Litigation is a mechanism, which has been devised by this Court so as to dilute the issue of locus and permit public spirited person to approach this Court or the High Courts on behalf of the persons who, on account of their social and economic backwardness, are not in a position to approach the High Courts or this Court."
"The PIL jurisdiction, therefore, cannot be permitted to become a mechanism to settle the scores between the competing officers."
Counsel appearing for Marandi submitted that "The state government gave an extension to an All India Service Officer my lords, it's a case of gross illegality."
The CJI, refusing to entertain the contempt petitions, verbally expressed that the aggrieved officer could have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal or the High Court.
"This jurisdiction for those who, due to socio-economic disadvantage, are not in a position .....a person who is superseded, entitled, he can very go before the CAT, or the High Court and challenge that. Why should we involve somebody who is a political rival?"
The counsel for the petitioners replied, "police officers do not want to come before the court."
To which the CJI objected and said, "That is incorrect, we have several cases where police officers have come before this court."
Need For Regular Court Monitoring Of SC Directions: Prakash Singh In Person Urges The Bench
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the original petitioner Prakash Singh, submitted that the earlier procedure, as per the directions in Prakash Singh, was that the UPSC panel would suggest three names for the post of DGP, and then the State Government would select one.
As per the recent application filed by the original petitioner, it is now sought that the committee composition be changed to include only the Chief Minister of the state, the Leader of Opposition of the State Assembly and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The CJI inquired whether it would not lead to a conflict of interest if, tomorrow, such a challenge to the DGP is made before the High Court of the concerned state.
Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the state of Tamil Nadu, weighed in to add, "It is because of a lack of another neutral authority, my lords, that we could have on the committee
Mr Prakash Singh, who was personally present before the Court today, submitted that violations of the court's directions were happening in the past few years because the Court was not stringently monitoring the implementation as it used to earlier.
" I just want to bring to your notice that the Supreme Court used to regularly implement the directions. Somehow, for reasons which I cannot explain and which I do not know, for the last 6 years, that has not happened. The main PIL/ petition has gone into deep freeze, and there is no monitoring."
"A lot of these problems that are coming up before the Supreme Court are because the monitoring has stopped." he added.
Sr Advocate Raju Ramchandran, appearing as the amicus, weighed in to clarify to the bench that there was a need for the court to only monitor the implementation of aspects like setting up a state security commission, police complaints authority etc.
He added that he has filed an application seeking directions to all the High Courts to constitute dedicated benches to oversee that the directions in Prakash Singh are implemented.
The matter will now be heard on October 27.
Case Details: PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA| Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 310/1996
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 824