CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 13-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 KAT JU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 - Writ petition 
challenging the appointment and continuation of respondent 
c 3 as Director General of Police (DGP) and for direction to 
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 
'{ 
F particular government, particularly, when it is sensitive 
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 
H 
of Constitution of India, 1950 primarily challenging 
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 
HELD: 1.1. Almost all the cases in the "A" summary, 
E 
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] 
B 
2. An appointment of a government servant is the 
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 ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.