Holding

The Court held that the writ petition was redundant and dismissed it, refusing to disturb the appointment of the DGP and leaving any disciplinary action to the government.

Summary

The petitioners, a citizens' organization, filed a writ under Article 32 challenging the appointment and continuation of Shri P.C. Pandey as Director General of Police (DGP) of Gujarat, alleging dereliction of duty during the 2002 communal riots and claiming that his presence would prejudice ongoing investigations and prosecutions. The State of Gujarat countered that most of the reopened cases had already been examined by the Scrutiny Committee and that Pandey was due to retire on 31 March 2009, rendering the petition moot. The Court examined whether the judiciary could intervene in a sensitive appointment of a DGP and whether it could direct disciplinary action against him. It held that the appointment is a prerogative of the government and, given the limited remaining tenure and the completion of case reviews, the petition was redundant. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without ordering any disciplinary action, leaving the matter to the concerned government.

Issues considered

Whether the continuation of the respondent as DGP would adversely affect the investigations and prosecutions related to the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Whether the Supreme Court can, under Article 32, set aside or direct the removal of a DGP appointed by the state government.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for disciplinary action against the respondent.
Whether the writ petition becomes redundant due to the respondent's imminent retirement.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

Appointment of DGPJudicial reviewArticle 32Writ petitionDisciplinary actionCommunal riotsAdministrative lawRedundancy of petition

Judgment

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 190

A CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE
II.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C.) No. 219 of 2006)
JANUARY 13, 2009
B
[MR. MARKANDEY KATJU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 - Writ petition
challenging the appointment and continuation of respondent
3 as Director General of Police (DGP) and for direction to
c State Government to initiate disciplinary action against him
- Allegation that respondent 3 who was Commissioner of
Police when communal disturbances rocked the State of
Gujarat committed serious dereliction in his duty and
committed number of irregularities - Cases were closed
D hastily by the then Gujarat Government - On account of
direction of Supreme Court, those cases were directed to be
reopened - A/legation that continuation of respondent 3 as
DGP would adversely affect the cases - Held: Most cases
reopened by investigating agency were already dealt with by
E Scrutiny Committee - Respondent 3 to retire soon - Writ
petition itself thus has become redundant as the continuation
of respondent 3 as DGP would be of no consequence insofar
as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner - An
appointment of a government servant is prerogative of '{

particular government, particularly, when it is sensitive
F
appointment of DGP - Under doctrine of Judie,ial review', such
an appointment is not disturbed more particularly, in the
factual panorama - As for any disciplinary action against
respondent 3, it is for the concerned government to take steps
- Administrative law - Judicial review.
G
Petitioner Organization was started in response to
the carnage which took place in Gujarat in 2002 with the
main objective to bridge gap between various religious
communities. Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 32
of Constitution of India, 1950 primarily challenging
H 190
CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE v. STATE OF 191
GUJARAT & ORS.
appointment and continuation of respondent no.3 to the A
post of Director General of Police, State of Gujarat and
for directing the respondent-State to take disciplinary
action including prosecuting respondent no.3 for having
failed in his duties during Gujarat carnage. The other
contentions raised were that during the relevant period B
respondent 3 was Commissioner of Police when
communal disturbances rocked the State of Gujarat. It
was claimed that more than 700 persons died and number
of irregularities were committed by respondent 3 such as
not supplying the reinforcements and serious
derelictions of his duties. It was further alleged that on C
account of the directions issued by Supreme Court,
about 2000 cases which were hastily closed by the then
Gujarat Government, were directed to be re-opened and
a fresh scrutiny into those cases was also ordered. It was
expressed that if respondent 3 continued in the highest D
post of Director General of Police, those cases would be
adversely affected and the guilty would be shielded and
that would be patent denial of justice.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. Almost all the cases in the "A" summary,
which were recommenced by the investigating agency,
have already been dealt with by the Scrutiny Committee.
Moreover, respondent 3 is going to retire on 31st March,
2009. In fact, Writ Petition itself become redundant as the
continuation of respondent 3 as the DGP is of no F
consequence insofar as the apprehension expressed by
the petitioner in the Writ Petition is concerned. [Para 5]
[194-G-H]
1.2. The allegation was that if respondent 3 continues G
to that post, he may be in a position to pressurize the
..._ Courts, where, in pursuance of the recommendations of
the Scrutiny Committee, the prosecutions are in
progress. Such a thing cannot be said either regarding
respondent 3 or even the Trial Courts in Gujarat. There
are no reasons to believe that respondent 3, in his H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R.

A remai!ling tenure of about three months, would take any "'f

such steps. The Trial Courts in Gujarat are not capable
of being pressurized in the manner expressed in the Writ ....
Petition. [Para 6] (195-A-B]

2. An appointment of a government servant is the
B prerogative of the particular government, particularly,
when it is a sensitive appointment of Director General of
Police. Under the doctrine of 'judicial review', this Court J,

would not extend hands to upset such an appointment,
more particularly, in the factual panorama which is
c available today. The present Writ Petition has become
redundant and is disposed of as such. As for any
disciplinary action against respondent 3, it is for the
concerned government. This Court would not enter the
fact finding exercise. (Para 7) (195-C-D]
D CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C.) No. ~

219 of 2006.
Under Article 32 of the Consttitution of India.
P.P. Rao, Aparna Bhat and Sahar Baksh for the Petitioner.
E
Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera, Sushma Suri and 1.H.
Syed (for Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article
F
32 of the Constitution of India has been filed basically
challenging the appointment and continuation of respondent No.
3 Shri P.C. Pandey to the post of Director General of Police,
State of Gujarat. The other prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct
respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat to take disciplinary action
G including prosecuting respondent No. 3 for having failed in his
duties during the Gujarat carnage of 2002. ~

2. Notice was issued by this Court on 11.5.2006 to the
"
respondents, whereupon. the State of Gujarat has come up with
H a Counter Affidavit, denying most of 1he cont ritions raised in
0
CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE v. STATE OF 193
GUJARAT & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
the Writ Petition. This Writ Petition was filed on 1.5.2006 and A
notice thereof was issued on 11.5.2006 and ever since then,
number of interim orders in nature of directions came to be
passed.
3. Shortly stated, the petitioner claiming itself to be an
B
organization, which was started as a response to the alleged
carnage which took place in Gujarat from 27.2.2002 onwards
with the main objective to bridge the gap between the various
~
religious communities, as also to ensure that justice is done to
those who are the victims of communalism. It is claimed that it
had set up a Citizens Tribunal to go into the causes and extent c
of communal violence in Gujarat headed by two retired Hon'ble
Judges of this Court. The petitioner has filed the Report of the
said Tribunal, which published in two volumes. The other
contentions which are raised are that the respondent No. 3 Shri
P.C. Pandey was the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad D
during the period when the communal disturbances rocked the
State of Gujarat. It is claimed that more than 700 persons died
and number of irregularities were committed by Shri Pandey
such as not supplying the reinforcements and serious
derelictions of his duties. Number of other allegations have E
been made that Shri Pandey was sent on deputation to CBI,
which appointment was challenged before this Court by the
petitioner by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 147 of 2004, wherein,
the Union of India had given an undertaking that he would not
handle any cases relating to Gujarat riots of_ 2002. He was F
accordingly not allowed to handle those cases. It has also come
in the allegations that on account of the directions issued by
this Court, about 2000 cases which were hastily closed by the
then Gujarat Government, were directed to be re-opened and
a fresh scrutiny into those cases was also ordered. It was G
expresses that if Shri Pandey continued in the highest post of
Director General of Police, those cases would be adversely
'Jo('
affected and the guilty would be shielded and that would be
patent denial of justice.
4. In its Counter Affidavit, the State of Gujarat opposed H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.

A most of the claims and pointed out that the claim that the
appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Director General of
Police would be detrimental to the cause of justice, is not
correct. It is pointed out that the Review Committee constituted
under the direction:: of this Court earlier vide order dated
s 17.8.2004 was required to look into all 2020 riot cases,
wherein, the investigating agency had filed "A" Summary. It is
further pointed out that Shri Pandey was not in any manner
connected with the Review Committee nor was he in a position
to influence the same. It is further pointed out that up to the
c quarter ending 30th April, 2006, as many as 1989 cases out
of the aforesaid 2020 cases had already been reviewed in
respect of which periodic reports were filed by the Committee
before this Court. It is claimed that in all, hardly 30 "A" summary
cases had remained and it was, therefore, argued before us
D by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
Gujarat that there was no point in now taking exception to the
appointment and continuation of the third respondent as the
Director General of Police. Learned Counsel also informed us
during the debate that even those 30 "A" summary cases have
E already been decided upon and, therefore, there is no scope
for those cases being affected by Shri Pandey in his
continuation as the Director General of Police. It is further
submitted at the Bar that Shri Pandey is going to retire on 31st
March, 2009 and under the circumstances, this Writ Petition
itself has become redundant. 1
F
5. Considering the overall situation, firstly, the fact that
almost all the cases in the "A" summary, which were
recommenced by the investigating agency, have already been
dealt with by the Scrutiny Committee and secondly that Shri
G Pandey is going to retire on 31st March, 2009, we do not
propose to continue with this Writ Petition. In fact, this Writ
Petition has itself become redundant as the continuation of Shri
Pandey as the DGP is of no consequence insofar as the
apprehension expressed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition
H is concerned.
CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE v. STATE OF 195
GUJARAT & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

6. Shri P.P. Rao urged that if Shri Pandey continues to that A
post, he may be in a position to pressurize the Courts, where,
in pursuance of the recommendations of the Scrutiny
Committee, the prosecutions are in progress. We do not think
that such a thing can be said either regarding Shri Pandey or
even the Trial Courts in Gujarat. We do not have any reasons B
to believe that Shri Pandey, in his remaining tenure of about
three months, would take any such steps. We do not think that
the Trial Courts in Gujarat are capable of being pressurized in
the manner expressed in the Writ Petition.

7. An appointment of a government servant is the C
prerogative of the particular government, particularly, when it is
a sensitive appointment of Director General of Police. Vve,
under the doctrine of 'judicial review', would not extend our
hands to upset such an appointment, more particularly, in the
factual panorama which is available today. We hold that the D
present Writ Petition has become redundant and we dispose
it of as such. As for any disciplinary action against Shri Pandey,
it is for the concerned government. We will not enter the fact
finding exercise.
E
8. Shri Rao further expressed that the Government of
Gujarat might extend the appointment by giving extension to
Shri Pandey. We do not think any such contention can be
entertained at this stage, without there being any basis for the
same. F
9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the light
of observations made hereinabove.

D.G. Writ Petition disposed of.