Summary
The Court dismissed the challenge to the interim CBI Director’s appointment because the statutory selection committee had in fact authorised the government to post a suitable officer pending a regular appointment. It left open whether such authorisation would otherwise be necessary in an exigency. A regular Director had since been appointed, satisfying the principal prayer, and the information requests had received replies carrying an unexhausted appeal remedy.
Issues
- Whether the interim appointment lacked authorisation of the statutory selection committee.
- Whether further relief concerning appointment or information disclosure was required.
Provisions considered
- Section 4A, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946The committee’s recorded resolution authorised the government to post a suitable interim officer; the challenge premised on absence of authorisation failed. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 16)
Held
- The committee’s resolution authorised the Central Government to post a suitable officer to discharge the Director’s duties pending a new appointment. The factual premise that the committee had been bypassed was misconceived. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16)
- Because express authorisation existed, the Court did not decide the larger question whether a committee resolution was necessary for an interim appointment in such an exigency. (¶ 16)
- The information requests had received replies advising recourse to the appellate authority under the RTI Act. No appeals appeared to have been filed, and the Court found no ground for intervention on that aspect. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Appointment of the regular Director satisfied the principal prayer. Any properly advised challenge to compliance with due process in that appointment remained available in accordance with law. (¶ 20)
- The effect of counsel’s disputed tweets belonged to separate pending contempt petitions and was not determined in this writ petition. (¶ 15)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. Necessity of committee authorisation in an exigency and the separate contempt issues left undecided.