MOHD. MUSTAFA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 16-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 19 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
MOHD. MUSTAFA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6905 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA AND
B. R. GAVAI, JJ]
Service law: Selection and appointment – Post of Director
General of Police (Head of Police Force) – Appointment of
respondent No.4 as DGP (HoPF) by the Governor of Punjab –
Tribunal set aside the selection on the ground that preparation of
the panel for selection of DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab was
in contravention of the Prakash Singh’s case – High Court set aside
the said order – On appeal, held: Courts in exercise of power under
judicial review do not interfere with selections made by expert bodies
by reassessing comparative merits of the candidates – Interference
is restricted to decisions vitiated by bias, mala fides and contrary to
statutory provisions – Preparation of panel for appointment as DGP
(HoPF) for the State of Punjab, by the Empanelment Committee is
in compliance of the Draft Guidelines, in conformity with the
directions issued by this Court in Prakash Singh’s case – Panel was
prepared after taking into account the relevant considerations as
directed by this Court in Prakash Singh’s case – No irrelevant
consideration prompted the decision – Preparation of the panel by
the Empanelment Committee cannot be said to be irrational and
unreasonable – Also tribunal erred in holding the decision of the
Committee as arbitrary in the absence of reasons – Furthermore,
allegations based on assertion of bias and prejudice need not be
gone into – Thus, no error committed by the High Court in setting
aside the judgment of the tribunal and upholding the selection and
appointment of respondent No.4 as DGP (HoPF), State of Punjab –
Judicial review.
Judicial review: Power of – Scope – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Judicial review may be defined as a Court’s
power to review the actions of other branches or levels of
government; especially the Court’s power to invalidate legislative
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 163
163
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
and executive actions as being unconstitutional. Power of judicial
review is within the domain of the judiciary to determine the
legality of administrative action and the validity of legislations
and it aims to protect citizens from abuse and misuse of power by
any branch of the State. The power of judicial review is a basic
feature of the Constitution of India. Judicial review has certain
inherent limitations. However, it is suited more for adjudication
of disputes other than for performing administrative functions. It
is for the executive to administer law and the function of the
judiciary is to ensure that the Government carries out its duties
in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The grounds
on which administrative action is subject to judicial review are
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.[Para 13,
14][180-F-G; 181-A-B]
1.2 The discretionary power vested in an administrative
authority is not absolute and unfettered. Discretion must be
exercised reasonably. [Para 15][182-B]
1.3 Conditions prompted by extraneous or irrelevant
considerations are unreasonable and liable to be set aside by
Courts in exercise of its power under judicial review. A decision
can be arrived at by an authority after considering all relevant
factors. If the discretionary power has been exercised in disregard
of relevant consideration, the Court will normally hold the action
bad in law. Relevant, germane and valid considerations cannot
be ignored or overlooked by an executive authority while taking
a decision. It is trite law that Courts in exercise of power under
judicial review do not interfere with selections made by expert
bodies by reassessing comparative merits of the candidates.
Interference with selections is restricted to decisions vitiated by
bias, mala fides and contrary to statutory provisions. [Para
16][182-D-F]
1.4 By way of implementation of the directions issued by
this Court in Prakash Singh’s case, UPSC framed Draft Guidelines
for empanelling officers for appointment as DGP (Chief of Police).
Officers belonging to the Indian Police Service of the concerned
cadre, not below the rank of ADG, and who have completed at
least 30 years of service as on the date of occurrence of vacancy
for which the panel is prepared, are eligible for being considered
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
for selection and appointment as DGP. Selection, according to
the Guidelines, s

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