No urgent hearing on plea against appointment of Rashmi Shukla as DGP: HC

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday refused an urgent hearing on a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Rashmi Shukla as Maharashtra's director general of police while claiming it to be arbitrary and illegal.

The PIL, filed by city-based lawyer Pratul Bhadale, also challenged the "conditional" appointment of IPS officer Sanjay Verma as the DGP of Maharashtra till the state assembly polls, claiming it would impair his ability to function independently and effectively during the crucial election period.

Verma took over as the DGP of Maharashtra on November 5, a day after incumbent Shukla was removed on a directive of the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the November 20 state assembly polls.

A state government resolution (GR) or order had said Verma will hold the top post till the elections process is over, while Shukla has been sent on compulsory leave for the same duration.

On Monday, Bhadale's plea was mentioned before a division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar by the petitioner's counsel, Vineet Naik, seeking urgent hearing.

The bench, however, questioned what was the petitioner's locus (legal right) on the issue.

"Who is the aggrieved party? The person who is appointed as temporary should come. He has not come. What is the public cause in this? How are you (petitioner) concerned?" the court asked.

The court said a PIL is filed for those who are disadvantaged.

"Someone is appointed from the cadre, how are you (petitioner) affected," it added.

The bench said if the petitioner wanted to challenge Shukla's appointment, then he ought to have done it in February itself.

"There is no urgency. It will be auto-listed," the HC said.

The petition questioned the "completely arbitrary and unacceptable digression" by the state government in appointing Sanjay Verma as DGP on a temporary basis.

As per the plea, the ECI earlier this month directed the state chief secretary for the removal of Rashmi Shukla on immediate basis from the DGP's post.

Pursuant to this, the government appointed IPS Sanjav Verma as DGP, however, with a condition that such appointment would be only till the completion of the state assembly elections.

"The ECI's communication to the state clearly mandated appointment of Sanjay Verma as DGP without any condition of the appointment being ad-hoc or temporary," the petition said.

The "conditional" appointment of Verma as DGP would impair his ability to function independently and effectively during the crucial election period, it claimed.

The bench, however, said the government has complied with the ECI's direction.

"Purpose is that the ECI has powers till the elections," the court said.

The petition also raised a challenge to the appointment of Rashmi Shukla as DGP, claiming she was due to retire in June 2024 but was granted an extension of two years in February 2024.

As per the plea, Shukla could not have been appointed as DGP in January this year when she had less than six months to retire.

This was in contravention to judgments passed by the Supreme Court, the PIL claimed.

The petition sought that the HC declare Verma's "conditional" appointment as illegal and contrary to law, and to call for all files related to his and also Shukla's appointment and the two-year extension given to her.