The Bombay High Court on Monday declined an urgent hearing request for a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges the appointments of Rashmi Shukla and Sanjay Verma as the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra. The petition, brought forth by Mumbai-based lawyer Pratul Bhadale, contests the legality and the temporary nature of these appointments, especially during the critical period leading up to the state assembly elections on November 20.
The plea specifically targets the decision-making process behind the “conditional” appointment of IPS officer Sanjay Verma as DGP until the completion of the election process, which was actioned a day after Rashmi Shukla was put on compulsory leave following a directive from the Election Commission of India (ECI). This move, according to the petitioner, could undermine Verma’s independence and effectiveness during the elections.
During the court session, the division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar questioned the petitioner’s standing in the matter. The justices probed, “Who is the aggrieved party? The person who is appointed temporarily should come forward. He has not. What is the public cause in this? How are you concerned?” They further noted that a PIL is meant to represent disadvantaged groups, questioning how the petitioner was directly affected by the appointments.
The petition also criticizes the state government’s alleged “arbitrary and unacceptable digression” in appointing Verma on a temporary basis, despite the ECI’s earlier instruction for a removal of Shukla and a clear mandate for Verma’s appointment without conditions. The petitioner contends that this conditional nature of Verma’s role could impair his functional independence.
Furthermore, the petition raises concerns over the appointment of Rashmi Shukla as DGP, arguing that her extension of two years beyond her impending retirement in June 2024 violated Supreme Court guidelines which prohibit such appointments within six months of an officer’s retirement.
The High Court, however, remarked that the government had adhered to the ECI’s directives, emphasizing that the election commission maintains authority during the electoral period. The court concluded that there was no immediate urgency in the matter, stating that it would be “auto-listed” for a hearing in due course.
