Supreme Court warns against using courts for political rivalries in Jharkhand DGP row
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK Advertisement New Delhi, August 18: The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that its contempt jurisdiction…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, August 18: The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that its contempt jurisdiction and the tool of public interest litigation (PIL) cannot be misused to further political agendas. The Court emphasised that political disputes must be resolved through the democratic process rather than through judicial forums.
Court Rejects Contempt Plea Over DGP Appointment
A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria refused to entertain a plea seeking contempt action against the Jharkhand government for appointing Anurag Gupta as the State’s Director General of Police (DGP).
“In the Jharkhand case, we do not want contempt jurisdiction to be used to settle political scores. If there is an issue with an appointment, the proper forum is the Central Administrative Tribunal. Political battles should be fought before the electorate,” the Bench observed.
Also Read: SC dismisses plea against Anurag Gupta’s appointment as Jharkhand DGP
PIL Meant for Public Good, Not Rivalries
The judges were hearing issues related to the Prakash Singh case on police chief appointments when the application against Gupta’s appointment came up. The Court noted that the plea was largely fuelled by a personal and professional dispute between Gupta and former DGP Ajay Kumar Singh, who was replaced by him.
“PIL is intended to widen access to justice by allowing public-spirited persons to approach this Court. It cannot be converted into an arena for competing factions to settle scores,” the Bench said.
Suggestions for Reform in DGP Selection
Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, supported suggestions by petitioner Prakash Singh that the appointment of State police chiefs should involve a collegium comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of the High Court—rather than the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
Singh argued that States were appointing Additional Directors General of Police (ADGPs) to bypass the Court’s guidelines, noting that violations had risen after judicial monitoring waned.
Ramachandran proposed that special benches of High Courts convene quarterly to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s rulings.
To Be Heard in Detail Later
CJI Gavai remarked that the matter would be examined further once the Constitution Bench delivers its ruling on the powers of Governors.
