Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Decided
13 January 2009
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 190 · 2009 INSC 22
Also cited as
  • (2009) 11 SCC 213 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed basically challenging the appointment and continuation of respondent No. 3 Shri P.C. Pandey to the post of Director General of Police, State of Gujarat. The other prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat to take disciplinary action including prosecuting respondent No. 3 for having failed in his duties during the Gujarat carnage of 2002.

p. 192, margin E

2

Notice was issued by this Court on 11.5.2006 to the respondents, whereupon. the State of Gujarat has come up with a Counter Affidavit, denying most of 1he cont ritions raised in the Writ Petition. This Writ Petition was filed on 1.5.2006 and A notice thereof was issued on 11.5.2006 and ever since then, number of interim orders in nature of directions came to be passed.

pp. 192–193, margin G

3

Shortly stated, the petitioner claiming itself to be an organization, which was started as a response to the alleged carnage which took place in Gujarat from 27.2.2002 onwards with the main objective to bridge the gap between the various religious communities, as also to ensure that justice is done to those who are the victims of communalism. It is claimed that it had set up a Citizens Tribunal to go into the causes and extent c of communal violence in Gujarat headed by two retired Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The petitioner has filed the Report of the said Tribunal, which published in two volumes. The other contentions which are raised are that the respondent No. 3 Shri P.C. Pandey was the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad D during the period when the communal disturbances rocked the State of Gujarat. It is claimed that more than 700 persons died and number of irregularities were committed by Shri Pandey such as not supplying the reinforcements and serious derelictions of his duties. Number of other allegations have E been made that Shri Pandey was sent on deputation to CBI, which appointment was challenged before this Court by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 147 of 2004, wherein, the Union of India had given an undertaking that he would not handle any cases relating to Gujarat riots of_ 2002. He was F accordingly not allowed to handle those cases. It has also come in the allegations that on account of the directions issued by this Court, about 2000 cases which were hastily closed by the then Gujarat Government, were directed to be re-opened and a fresh scrutiny into those cases was also ordered. It was expresses that if Shri Pandey continued in the highest post of Director General of Police, those cases would be adversely affected and the guilty would be shielded and that would be patent denial of justice.

p. 193

4

In its Counter Affidavit, the State of Gujarat opposed H most of the claims and pointed out that the claim that the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Director General of Police would be detrimental to the cause of justice, is not correct. It is pointed out that the Review Committee constituted under the direction:: of this Court earlier vide order dated 17.8.2004 was required to look into all 2020 riot cases, wherein, the investigating agency had filed "A" Summary. It is further pointed out that Shri Pandey was not in any manner connected with the Review Committee nor was he in a position to influence the same. It is further pointed out that up to the quarter ending 30th April, 2006, as many as 1989 cases out of the aforesaid 2020 cases had already been reviewed in respect of which periodic reports were filed by the Committee before this Court. It is claimed that in all, hardly 30 "A" summary cases had remained and it was, therefore, argued before us by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat that there was no point in now taking exception to the appointment and continuation of the third respondent as the Director General of Police. Learned Counsel also informed us during the debate that even those 30 "A" summary cases have already been decided upon and, therefore, there is no scope for those cases being affected by Shri Pandey in his continuation as the Director General of Police. It is further submitted at the Bar that Shri Pandey is going to retire on 31st March, 2009 and under the circumstances, this Writ Petition itself has become redundant.

pp. 193–194

5

Considering the overall situation, firstly, the fact that almost all the cases in the "A" summary, which were recommenced by the investigating agency, have already been dealt with by the Scrutiny Committee and secondly that Shri Pandey is going to retire on 31st March, 2009, we do not propose to continue with this Writ Petition. In fact, this Writ Petition has itself become redundant as the continuation of Shri Pandey as the DGP is of no consequence insofar as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is concerned.

p. 194, margin F

6

Shri P.P. Rao urged that if Shri Pandey continues to post, he may be in a position to pressurize the Courts, where, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, the prosecutions are in progress. We do not that such a thing can be said either regarding Shri Pandey even the Trial Courts in Gujarat. We do not have any reasons to believe that Shri Pandey, in his remaining tenure of about three months, would take any such steps. We do not think the Trial Courts in Gujarat are capable of being pressurized the manner expressed in the Writ Petition.

p. 195, margin A

7

An appointment of a government servant is prerogative of the particular government, particularly, when a sensitive appointment of Director General of Police. under the doctrine of 'judicial review', would not extend hands to upset such an appointment, more particularly, in factual panorama which is available today. We hold that present Writ Petition has become redundant and we dispose it of as such. As for any disciplinary action against Shri Pandey, it is for the concerned government. We will not enter the finding exercise.

p. 195, margin C

8

Shri Rao further expressed that the Government of Gujarat might extend the appointment by giving extension Shri Pandey. We do not think any such contention can entertained at this stage, without there being any basis for same.

p. 195, margin E

9

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the of observations made hereinabove. D.G. Writ Petition disposed

p. 195, margin F