The Delhi High Court characterized as “cut and paste” a petition filed before it challenging the appointment of IPS officer Rakesh Asthana to the post of Delhi Police Commissioner and warned the petitioner that such activity was not should not be repeated in the future.
The High Court also expressed concern that the petitioner’s lawyer was unable to explain the claims made in the petition which were allegedly copied.
A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said this petition is fully copied, including period and comma, from another plea filed with similar prayers in the Supreme Court and added that if the petitioner wants to file something, he has to do it independently.
He said the lawyer, who is the author of the petition that was copied, is waiting in the queue to argue.
The High Court heard a PIL from Sadre Alam, a lawyer, against the appointment of Mr. Asthana, as well as a request for intervention from the NGO Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), filed by lawyer Prashant Bhushan , who challenged the appointment in the Supreme Court. To research.
“All of these things you copied from the senior counsel’s memo (referring to Bhushan). If you copy, you do it at 5 percent and write 95 percent of yours. Here, 97-99 percent is copied even with all periods and commas. Don’t do that in the future, we tolerated it this time around, “said the bench.
To this, lawyer BS Bagga, representing the petitioner, said “I do not know where these allegations come from”.
Previously, Mr Bhushan had argued that Mr Alam’s request was in bad faith and was a “complete cut and paste” of his plea pending in court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Center, also agreed with Bhushan and said this cut-and-paste practice should be discouraged.
During today’s hearing, when Bagga began his argument on the inter-cadre transfer, the Chief Justice asked him what he meant by “super timescale”.
The court repeatedly asked the same question which it could not explain and asked for time to verify and come back.
“We ask you for the last time, we will dismiss the petition with costs. You copied from his note which is the problem. Without understanding, you are reading. Now we want an additional explanation. What is the super timescale,” said the bench.
Addressing Mr Bhushan, the bench said: “You also distribute your copies everywhere. Don’t do that. He doesn’t know what a super timescale is. You do it in good faith but it becomes a weapon. I deliberately asked the question. What help will we get? This is how the Delhi High Court receives help.
While dictating the order, the bench said that “the lawyer appearing in … began with a discussion of the inter-cadre transfer. He simply read paragraphs without explaining anything. When the word” super scale of time “has been read, we asked a question whether he can explain or not and the applicant’s lawyer was not able to explain what is the meaning of the super time scale in the case law of the service . “
The lawyer asked for time and the court set the case for a new hearing on September 27.
The High Court had previously issued notices to the Center and to Mr. Asthana regarding the petition.
The petitioner requested the rescission of the July 27 order issued by the Home Office appointing Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner, as well as the order granting him inter-cadre delegation and extension of service. .
“The challenged orders (of MHA) are a clear and flagrant violation of the directions adopted by the Supreme Court of India in the Prakash Singh case, as Respondent # 2 (Rakesh Asthana) did not have a residual mandate. minimum of six months; no UPSC A panel has been formed for the appointment of Delhi’s police commissioner, and the criteria for a minimum two-year term have been ignored, ”the plea said.
The Center, in its affidavit, said that Mr. Asthana’s appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner was made in the public interest, bearing in mind the various public order challenges facing the police. national capital is facing, which have implications for national security as well as for / cross-border implications.
Defending his appointment, the Center said it felt a “pressing need” to “appoint a person to head the Delhi Police Force, who had a diverse and extensive experience in leading a large police force in a large state with as well as public order issues / experience of working and supervising central investigative agencies as well as paramilitary forces “.
He said his tenure had also been extended in the public interest, exercising the powers given to the supervisory authority for executives.
Mr. Asthana, in his affidavit, told the court there was a sustained social media campaign against him and that the legal challenge to his appointment was an abuse of process, resulting from a vendetta.
He said that since he was appointed special director of the CBI, there have been constant prosecutions against him by some organizations as part of a “selective campaign”.
“There are two organizations, namely Common Cause and Center for Public Interest Litigation, which are professional public interest litigators and exist only to file litigation as the sole means of public service. One or two people lead to both the organization and have deep and pervasive control over those organizations, ”the affidavit said.
(Except for the title, this story was not edited by The Bharat Express News staff and is posted Platforms.)