The “primary consideration” was that Delhi was “witnessing diverse and extremely challenging situations of public order, public order situation and police issues, which not only had national security implications, but also international / cross-border”. This required an officer “with exposure to the complexities of governance and having knowledge of the nuances of policing in general,” the government said.
In an affidavit filed through a permanent attorney Amit mahajan, the Center said that no fault can be found in the appointment of Asthana as the city police commissioner who had been made in accordance with and after scrupulously following all applicable rules and regulations.
The Center noted that the “best attempt to find a suitable IPS officer who has varied and diverse police experience in a vast state, central investigative agency, national security or paramilitary force” was made in the AGMUT cadre, but “It was found after a careful examination of the available options that the experience of managing the police force” was not available.
“The necessary work experience and supervision of the central investigative agency / paramilitary force and police force of a large state that has various political and public order problems was considered to be lacking in the current pool of available officers,” the affidavit added. .
Invoking “public interest”, the Center said the decision was made to have an officer with experience in all the aforementioned fields to supervise the Delhi Police and provide effective surveillance on the recent public order situation that emerged in the capital.
“Being Delhi the capital of our country has its own characteristic factors that do not exist in any other commission. Any incident that occurs here has a far-reaching impact and implications not only throughout the country, but beyond borders,” he says the affidavit.
He also distinguished between the appointment of state DGPs in accordance with the SC ruling in the Prakash Singh case and the appointment of the commissioner, adding that “the requirement of a specified minimum stay does not apply to the appointment of commissioners / chiefs of police from Union Territories. ”
The affidavit held that the request by Sadre Alam, a lawyer, challenging the appointment was an “abuse of legal process and manifestly the result of some personal revenge.” He stated that an in-service PIL issue could not be considered. He added that the PIL, as well as the intervention of the NGO Public Interest Litigation Center in the appointment of Asthana, “deserves to be fired with exemplary costs.”