The Supreme Court has drawn a hard line against the misuse of Public Interest Litigations, declaring that they cannot be converted into a proxy warzone for rival government officers seeking to outmaneuver each other.
A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, was dealing with contempt petitions alleging that Jharkhand flouted the landmark Prakash Singh directions while appointing its Director General of Police. The challenge stemmed from objections to the appointment of Anurag Gupta as DGP and the alleged removal of Ajay Kumar Singh.
The Court, however, was not convinced. It said the petitions seemed less about public interest and more about settling personal disputes. “This lis appears to be prompted by a dispute between two police officers,” the bench observed, stressing that any officer who feels wronged has established legal avenues before tribunals or High Courts—PIL is not one of them.
The bench underlined that the very essence of PILs lies in opening court doors to those who cannot afford to knock due to social and economic disadvantage. To stretch this mechanism into a weapon for career rivalries, the Court said, would be a distortion of its purpose.
When counsel for the petitioners argued that the State’s decision to extend an officer’s tenure was grossly illegal, the CJI responded that the proper course was a direct challenge before the CAT or High Court, not dragging political opponents into the fray.
Interestingly, veteran police reformer Prakash Singh, present in court, urged the bench to revive stronger monitoring of its earlier directives. He lamented that the system had slipped into “deep freeze” over the last six years, allowing repeated violations in DGP appointments.
Suggestions were floated about altering the selection committee for DGP appointments—perhaps including only the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of the High Court. But concerns were raised about potential conflicts of interest if challenges later reached those very courts.
The proceedings underscored two parallel truths: while the Court refuses to let PILs morph into arenas of bureaucratic rivalry, it is also grappling with how to enforce its own police reform guidelines with greater vigilance.
