PIL on DGP appointment sparks debate on judicial activism

The petition was filed in 2006, challenging the appointment of P C Pandey as DGP of Gujarat, who was removed from the top post by the EC just before the recently concluded Assembly polls.

As the petitioner’s counsel Aparna Bhat began to argue the case, Justice Katju sought to know how the courts could decide on the appointment of police personnel. “We are not here to run the administration of the state. It is exclusively the state’s jurisdiction to appoint DGP, Home Secretary and others. And the Judiciary has nothing to do with that,” he noted. In a direct reference to an order passed on December 6 last year, where judges were strongly advised to exercise restraint and not to encroach domain of other organs of the State, he went on to add, “There should be some self-restraint and judges must exercise self restraint.”

Although he rightly agreed that the petition had now become infructuous, he insisted that judges must not get into issues like appointment or selection in administration. To the advocate’s argument that now since elections were over and there was all possibility of Pandey returning to his post, Justice Katju opined, “He may or may not be a desirable man but it is for the state Government to decide.” However not agreeing with the line taken by Justice Katju, Justice Sema directed the petitioner organisation to furnish before it the recent order of the EC on his removal.