SC moved for contempt against Modi, Shah in Delhi top cop’s appointment

The Supreme Court was moved on Friday for initiating contempt against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and home minister Amit Shah for disregarding top court’s 2018 directions in police reform case in the appointment of IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi police commissioner just four days before he was to retire from service on July 31, 2021.

The contempt petition by lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma has contended that Prime Minister Modi heads the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet that had cleared the appointment of Asthana as Delhi police commissioners and home minister Shah heads home ministry and had appointed Asthana as police commissioner in violation of the top court’s 2018 directions.

In his grounds for initiating contempt both against Modi and Shah, Sharma says, “Because home ministry headed by Mr. Amit Shah and the Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Damodar Das Modi, headed Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) knowingly and deliberately acted against the

Supreme court judgment therefore a serious contempt

of court is liable to be proceed against both respondents.”

Sharma in his contempt plea has said that Asthana’s appointment as Delhi police commissioner is “not only a willful denial of the judgment of the supreme court but also has been done knowingly and deliberately to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice.”

Having alleged contempt both by Modi and Shah, Sharma in his plea says, “Because willful denial of Supreme Court order by the Prime Minister and home minister for their political vested interest have created a serious question of constitutional system itself under the Constitution and it is liable to be resolved by the court constitution bench weather these two individuals have any legal and moral right to continue in the

constitutional office for the rest of the life.”

The contempt petition by Sharma is rooted in July 3, 2018, order of the top court in police reform cases also known as Prakash Singh case wherein court while barring the sState government from making ad-hoc appointment of acting police chiefs had directed that no person having less than three months of service would be considered for appointment to head police force.