Settle political scores outside: Top court on Jharkhand cop's contempt case

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a contempt petition linked to the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Jharkhand, stressing that courts cannot be used as instruments to settle political disputes.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, heading the bench, observed that the contempt pleas appeared to have been filed by political rivals. While declining to hear a plea moved by BJP leader Babulal Marandi, he remarked: "Settle your scores before the electorate. We cannot permit courts to be used for politics. We don't want contempt petitions to be used to settle political scores."

The bench underlined that if an officer has been superseded or unlawfully denied appointment, the individual concerned may approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or the High Court.

The court also declined to entertain a separate contempt plea against the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand, where the petition alleged that state rules had been framed to protect one Mr Anurag Gupta and raised grievances over the removal of Mr Ajay Singh from his post.

It clarified that if a person is aggrieved by the state's order of removal or denial of a post, such an officer can seek appropriate legal remedies. The bench reiterated that while the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction was created to address genuine grievances, it "cannot be permitted to settle scores".

The hearing was part of a broader matter concerning the process of DGP appointments, on which the Court had earlier issued detailed directions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that states continue to bypass the rules by appointing acting DGPs, despite prohibitions by the Court, and urged modification of the selection process, citing examples from multiple states.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also pointed out that at least seven states currently have acting DGPs in violation of the Court's orders.

The Chief Justice questioned whether the Supreme Court should be monitoring such appointments at all, asking, "Do we possess expertise to monitor all these issues?"

The bench suggested that High Courts could be asked to set up special benches to oversee compliance with earlier directions.

During the proceedings, the court also permitted the withdrawal of a writ petition from the Jharkhand High Court challenging legislation on the DGP appointment process, with the matter to be transferred and heard along with similar petitions already pending before the Supreme Court.

The bench made clear that while genuine grievances by aggrieved officers can be adjudicated through established legal remedies, the use of contempt or PIL petitions to pursue political agendas would not be permitted.

- Ends