Summary
A public-interest challenge alleged defects in Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as CBI Special Director. The Court examined the selection minutes, found that the Director had been consulted and relevant materials considered, and upheld the appointment. It distinguished judicial review of the selection process from review of comparative merit.
Issues
- Whether statutory consultation with the CBI Director required acceptance of his view.
- Whether the selection record disclosed illegality in the Special Director appointment.
Provisions considered
- Section4C, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946For the relevant appointment, the statutory committee recommends after consulting the Director; the consultees’ views must be considered but do not displace the committee’s recommendation authority. (¶¶ 5, 13–18)
Held
- Consultation is mandatory, but in this statutory committee arrangement the departmental consultee’s view has no overriding primacy. It forms part of the discussion and consideration underlying the recommendation. (¶ 13–14)
- The committee considered the Director’s confidential material and discussed it with him, noting lack of verified material identifying the named person and the earlier suitability proposal. Its recommendation was unanimous and based on relevant considerations; the minutes contradicted reports that no decision was taken. (¶ 15–18)
- Judicial review differs from merits review. Lack of effective consultation may be reviewable, but the Court did not substitute its judgment for the committee’s assessment where the required consultation and relevant consideration occurred. The FIR did not name Asthana. (¶ 17–19)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; appointment as CBI Special Director held free from the alleged illegality. No determination of criminal guilt was made.