The Delhi High Court Friday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Sujan R Chinoy as the Director General of Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA).
A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said since the plea relates to a service matter in which a PIL is not maintainable, no case for interference is made out.
The court noted that MP-IDSA is an autonomous body, established with the aim and object to conduct research and to take relevant policy decisions and studies in relation to defence and security of the nation.
Sujan R Chinoy was appointed as its Director General in January 2019.
“In the considered opinion of this court, as the present PIL is in relation to a service matter, no case is made out for interference in the matter. Admission is declined,” ordered the bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea and said a PIL is not maintainable in service matters and the appointment in question was made as per due procedure by the appointments committee of the cabinet.
“This appointment is made by a committee consisting of cabinet secretary, defence secretary and two persons of eminence. The petitioner has no connection. He is a stranger,” the senior law officer said.
Petitioner Subhash Chandran KR, a lawyer, contended the issue raised by him was in public interest as it concerns a prominent post in defence for which no advertisement was published.
The bench observed there is no advertisement for a “lot of high offices”, adding, “We are dismissing it. PIL is not maintainable”.
The petitioner alleged the institute did not follow the norms required for a public appointment which was “an act of lawlessness cutting at the very root of the strict mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”.
The petitioner said the guiding principle for the appointment of chief executives in autonomous organisations clearly stipulates that it has to be carried out by a search-cum-selection committee which should mandatorily include at least one outside expert of eminence from the field.
It is also mandated that the committee should include the chief executive of the autonomous institution, unless the selection is for the chief executive himself and none of these criteria was met in the appointment of Chinoy, the petition said.
“The respondent no 2 (Chinoy) was never known to be in any entity in the field of Defence studies and analysis throughout his career in foreign services,” the petition said.
It alleged his appointment was “patently illegal, malafide, arbitrary and was thus liable to be set aside”.
