The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain contempt petitions challenging the appointment of Jharkhand Director General of Police (DGP) Anurag Gupta, making it clear that its contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to settle political disputes or service rivalries.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, observed that parties dissatisfied with appointments or transfers should approach statutory forums such as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) instead of invoking contempt proceedings or public interest litigations (PILs).
“In the Jharkhand case, we do not want contempt jurisdiction to be used to settle political scores. If you have a problem with a particular appointment then go to the CAT… If you want to settle political scores, then go before the electorate,” CJI Gavai remarked.
Political Petitions Rejected
The court dismissed contempt pleas filed by the Akhil Bhartiya Adimjanjati Bikas Samiitee Jharkhand and BJP leader Babulal Marandi, among others, which had sought action against the state government over Gupta’s appointment. The bench underscored that the PIL mechanism was originally devised to provide access to justice for disadvantaged groups, not to challenge promotions or appointments of senior officers.
“The PIL mechanism was devised to allow access to justice for disadvantaged sections. It cannot be a tool for contesting promotions or appointments between competing officers,” the bench stated.
The petitions alleged that Gupta’s appointment violated the Prakash Singh guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, which mandate that the DGP must be chosen from among the three senior-most IPS officers empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission and that such appointments carry a fixed two-year tenure.
It was also contended that Gupta had already reached the age of superannuation on April 30, and the state government’s move to seek an extension for him was contrary to established rules. Reports indicated that the Centre had rejected the extension proposal.
Court’s Directions
The bench clarified that disputes of supersession or service grievances should be addressed through available legal remedies:
“If any officer feels he has been illegally superseded or denied a legitimate claim, remedies are available under law. We cannot convert contempt jurisdiction into a forum for such service disputes,” the CJI said.
Amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran informed the court that pending writ petitions in the Jharkhand High Court on the issue would be withdrawn and consolidated before the apex court. One of the contempt pleas had also alleged non-compliance with the Prakash Singh verdict by the state’s chief secretary.
