New Delhi [India], October 1 (ANI): Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora has ordered all DCPs in the city to file a report on the complaints of sexual harassment received by the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) in the last five years.
New Delhi [India], April 18 (ANI): As many as 14 teams of police are investigating the Jahangirpuri violence case that took place in Delhi on April 16, said Commissioner of Police Rakesh Asthana on Monday.
New Delhi Nov 26 PTI The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the plea of an NGO challenging the Delhi High Court order which upheld the Centres decision to appoint senior IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna issued notice to the Centre and Asthana and sought their response on the plea of the NGO the Centre for Public Interest Litigation The NGO has filed a writ petition and an appeal against the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before his superannuation on July 31 Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the NGO said that they have filed the appeal as directed by the top court on November 18 Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre and Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi representing Asthana said that they would file their replies in two weeks On November 18 the top court had asked the NGO to file an appeal against the Delhi High Court order On October 12 the Delhi High Court upheld the Centres decision to appoint Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner saying there was no irregularity illegality or infirmity in his selection Dismissing a PIL challenging his selection it had said the justification and reasons given by the Centre for appointing Asthana are plausible calling for no interference in judicial review The high court had said the Supreme Courts decision in the Prakash Singh case which mandated a minimum tenure for certain police officials and the constitution of a UPSC panel before selection was not applicable to the appointment of Police Commissioner for Delhi but were intended to apply only to the appointment of a State DGP Asthana a 1984-batch IPS officer who was serving as the Director-General of Border Security Force was appointed the Commissioner on July 27 after being shifted to the Union Territory cadre from Gujarat cadre for the tenure of one year On August 25 the top court had asked the Delhi High Court to decide preferably within a period of two weeks the plea pending before it challenging the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner It had permitted the NGO to move the high court to intervene in the pending plea against Asthanas appointment The NGOs petition has urged the top court to set aside the Centres order to appoint Asthana after extending his service period At the outset the CJI had then expressed his inability to hear the PIL saying I had expressed my views during the selection of CBI Director The CJI in an earlier meeting of the high-powered selection panel which also comprised the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition had put forth the legal position which reportedly led to non-consideration of Asthana for being appointed as the CBI Director The NGO has urged the apex court to direct the central government to produce its July 27 order approving the inter-cadre deputation of Asthana from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT cadre It termed the extension of his tenure as well as appointment as illegal as he did not have a residual tenure of mandatory six months of service at the time of his appointment as Commissioner of Police since he was to retire within four days It also claimed that the order violated the Fundamental Rule 56d which stipulates that no government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years The central government did not have the power under Rule 3 of All India Services Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters Rules to relax Rule 161 of the All India Services Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits Rules in order to give the extension of service to Rakesh Asthana the PIL claimed The CPIL has further claimed that the Centres order violated the policy regarding Inter-Cadre deputation of All India Service Officers PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS
New Delhi Nov 26 PTI The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the plea of an NGO challenging the Delhi High Court order which upheld the Centres decision to appoint senior IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna issued notice to te Centre and Asthana and sought their response on the plea of the NGO the Centre for Public Interest Litigation The NGO has filed a writ petition and an appeal against the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before his superannuation on July 31 Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the NGO said that they have filed the appeal as directed by the top court on November 18Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre and Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi representing Asthana said that they would file their replies in two weeksOn November 18 the top court had asked the NGO to file an appeal against the Delhi High Court orderOn October 12 the Delhi High Court upheld the Centres decision to appoint Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner saying there was no irregularity illegality or infirmity in his selection PTI MNL MNL DV DV
New Delhi [India], November 26 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre and Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana on a plea of NGO CPIL against the Delhi High Court order of upholding Asthana's appointment as police chief.
New Delhi [India], November 25 (ANI): Ahead of farmers' unions tractor march to Parliament during the winter session, Delhi Commissioner of Police Rakesh Asthana said that nobody is objecting to democratic protests but under no circumstances will the law and order be allowed to be disturbed.
New Delhi Nov 18 PTI The Supreme Court Thursday allowed an NGO to file an appeal against the Delhi High Court order which upheld the Centres decision to appoint senior IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before his superannuation on July 31A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna said that it will take up for hearing the writ petition filed by the NGO and the appeal to be filed by it on November 26Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation CPIL said that the court had on August 25 kept its plea against Asthanas appointment pending and asked the Delhi High Court to decide expeditiously a similar plea pending thereNow that the high court has decided the plea pending there this court has the benefit of the judgement I request this court to decide our plea which is pending here challenging the appointment of Asthana Bhushan saidSolicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre raised preliminary objection on technical ground that it is a writ petition and if Bhushan is aggrieved by the order of the high court then he has to file an appeal with the permission of this courtThe bench said there are precedents where with courts permission a party who is aggrieved with high court order can file an appealWe will grant you liberty to file an appeal and would take both the writ petition and the appeal together and decide it because we only asked you by our order of August 25 to move the High Court by way of impleadment the bench saidSenior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Asthana said the court should not keep the writ petition pending if it is granting liberty to the petitioner NGO to file an appeal The bench said it would look into that aspect on November 26On October 12 the Delhi High Court upheld the Centres decision to appoint Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before his superannuation on July 31 saying there was no irregularity illegality or infirmity in his selectionDismissing a PIL challenging his selection it had said the justification and reasons given by the Centre for appointing Asthana are plausible calling for no interference in judicial reviewThe high court had said the Supreme Courts decision in the Prakash Singh case which mandated a minimum tenure for certain police officials and the constitution of a UPSC panel before selection was not applicable to the appointment of Police Commissioner for Delhi but were intended to apply only to the appointment of a State DGPAsthana a 1984-batch IPS officer who was serving as the Director-General of Border Security Force was appointed the Commissioner on July 27 after being shifted to the Union Territory cadre from Gujarat cadre for the tenure of one yearOn August 25 the top court had asked the Delhi High Court to decide preferably within a period of two weeks the plea pending before it challenging the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police CommissionerIt had permitted the NGO to move the high court to intervene in the pending plea against Asthanas appointmentThe NGOs petition has urged the top court to set aside the Centres order to appoint Asthana after extending his service periodAt the outset the CJI had then expressed his inability to hear the PIL saying I had expressed my views during the selection of CBI DirectorThe CJI in an earlier meeting of the high-powered selection panel which also comprised the Prime Minister and the leader of opposition had put forth the legal position which reportedly led to non-consideration of Asthana for being appointed as the CBI DirectorThe NGO have urged the apex court to direct the central government to produce its July 27 order approving the inter-cadre deputation of Asthana from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT cadreIt termed the extension of his tenure as well as appointment as illegal as he did not have a residual tenure of mandatory six months of service at the time of his appointment as Commissioner of Police since he was to retire within 4 daysIt also claimed that the order violated the Fundamental Rule 56d which stipulates that no government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years The central government did not have the power under Rule 3 of All India Services Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters Rules to relax Rule 161 of the All India Services Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits Rules in order to give extension of service to Rakesh Asthana the PIL claimedThe CPIL have further claimed that the Centres order violated the policy regarding Inter-Cadre deputation of All India Service Officers PTI MNL SA
New Delhi [India], October 29 (ANI): Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana on Friday said new officers and new units have been added to its Special Cell as a part of its terror control plan in the national capital.
New Delhi Sep 27 PTI Filing public interest litigations PILs has become an industry and a career in itself the Centre said in the Delhi High Court on Monday as it argued that the appointment of Gujarat-cadre IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner deserved no intervention They say there are good officers Who are they Are they the persons who possibly felt aggrieved PIL is an industry a career by itself which was not envisaged Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before a bench headed by Chief Justice D N Patel which reserved its verdict on lawyer Sadre Alams PIL against Asthanas appointment Mehta representing the Centre stated that Asthana was appointed as Delhi Police Commissioner after following the due procedure as applicable to the national capital and a PIL could not be permitted to be a forum for settling scores Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi representing Asthana claimed before the bench which also comprised Justice Jyoti Singh that the petitioner was a proxy for somebody who does not want to come in the front and holds personal vendetta People are always aggrieved if some peer or someone in the same service is selected But here there is no such challenge They are people who are educated at the pinnacle of their career he stated Both Centre and Asthana objected to the intervention plea filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation CPIL which has already moved the Supreme Court against the appointment Neither the petitioner nor the intervenor is entitled to be heard by the court because of the malafide conduct said senior lawyer Rohatgi The very fact that the same procedure was followed eight times and never questioned is ground enough to accept my submission that there is something other than public interest Mehta stated Advocate Prashant Bhushan representing CPIL stated that Centres stand that it found no eligible officers in the Union Territory cadre for appointment as Delhi Commissioner was astounding and had a demoralising effect He also claimed that the petition here was a copy-paste of the organisations plea before the top court Lawyer B S Bagga appearing for the petitioner denied the allegation of mala fide and contended that Asthanas appointment was in the teeth of the settled service law In the petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the July 27 order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs appointing Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner and also the order granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service to him The impugned orders of MHA are in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case as respondent no2 Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months no UPSC panel was formed for appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner and the criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years has been ignored the plea said The Centre in its affidavit has said that the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner was done in public interest keeping in mind the diverse law and order challenges faced by the national capital which have national security implications as well as internationalcross border implications Defending his appointment the Centre said that it felt a compelling need to appoint a person as a head of the police force of Delhi who had diverse and vast experience of heading a large police force in a large State having diverse political as well as public order problem experience of working and supervising Central Investigating Agency as well as para-military forces It said his service tenure was also extended in public interest in exercise of the powers vested in the cadre controlling authority and prayed that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs Asthana in his affidavit has told the court that there is a sustained social media campaign against him and the legal challenge to his appointment was an abuse of process of law arising from vendetta He said that ever since he was appointed Special Director CBI proceedings are being consistently filed against him by certain organisations as part of a selective campaign The petition with similar prayers which has been filed by CPIL before the Supreme Court has urged to direct the central government to produce the July 27 order it issued approving the inter-cadre deputation of Asthana from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT cadre On August 25 the Supreme Court had asked the high court to decide within two weeks the plea pending before it against the appointment of the senior IPS officer as Delhi Police Commissioner PTI ADS SA
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
