Judgments

We, under the doctrine of `judicial review', would not extend our hands to upset such an appointment, more particularly, in the factual panorama which is available today. Wonder what might that be.

Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Gujarat & Others Writ Petition (C) No. 219 of 2006. Date of Judgment 13-01-09

The above statement is made by the SC while dismissing a writ petition challenging the appointment of Mr. P.C. Pandey to the post of Director General of Police, State of Gujarat. The petitioner a citizen's group challenged the appointment on the ground of involvment of Mr. pandey in the Gujarat carnage. They apprehend the misuse of position by Mr. pandey who was the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad while the riot happend and is under the shadow of doubt.

Court found the following

1. Appointment of a governmnet servant is a prerogative of the goernment, especially when it is to posts as sensitive as DG of police.

2. "We, under the doctrine of `judicial review', would not extend our hands to upset such an appointment, more particularly, in the factual panorama which is available today"

3. Mr. pandey is going to retire on March 2009. (Did they mean that less chance of committing more mischiefs!)

I can appreciate the position the court have taken on the non-extention of judicial review in the regular appointment, but could not figure out "the factual panorama" of the day, about which Justice Sirpurkar is (conspicuously) silent.

a) Is the court extending a clean chit to the Gujarat government

b) Is it the re-election of Mr. Modi, the factual panorama

c) Is it the retirement date;

or is it just that

d) The review comittee has already reviewed majority of the cases

May be I am reading too much into it !