CBI Special Director Appointment: Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge Against Rakesh Asthana’s Promotion

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India & Others, addressing the validity of the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner, Common Cause, had challenged his appointment, alleging violations of statutory procedures and concerns over integrity. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the appointment, ruling that the selection process followed legal guidelines.

Background of the Case

The case arose from the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of CBI through an order issued on October 22, 2017. The petitioner, Common Cause, a registered society known for filing public interest litigations, alleged that the appointment was made in violation of principles of institutional integrity and fairness.

The petition specifically argued:

The appointment process lacked transparency and violated prescribed statutory procedures.
Rakesh Asthana’s name had surfaced in diaries and documents seized during a raid on Sterling Biotech, which was under investigation for financial irregularities.
CBI had lodged an FIR on August 30, 2017, in which Asthana’s name was indirectly mentioned.
The appointment of an officer under such circumstances would undermine the credibility of the CBI.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Common Cause)

The petitioner, represented by Prashant Bhushan, contended:

The appointment violated Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1998), where the Supreme Court had laid down clear guidelines for CBI appointments.
Under Section 4C of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the appointment of officers at the level of Superintendent of Police and above must be made by a Selection Committee in consultation with the Director, CBI.
The Director, CBI, had submitted a confidential note opposing the appointment, citing Asthana’s alleged involvement in ongoing investigations.
The newspaper reports from ‘The Hindu,’ ‘The Pioneer,’ and ‘India Today’ suggested irregularities in the selection process.
Common Cause requested that the Supreme Court quash the appointment and direct a fresh selection process.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India & Rakesh Asthana)

The Government of India, represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, argued:

The selection was carried out legally and in accordance with the DSPE Act.
The Selection Committee had considered all relevant materials, including the CBI Director’s note, before recommending Asthana.
There was no direct evidence linking Asthana to any criminal misconduct.
The CBI had itself recommended Asthana’s promotion on July 6, 2017.
The Vigilance Commission does not take cognizance of complaints filed just before promotions unless there is concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the appointment did not suffer from any illegality. Key observations included:

“The Selection Committee deliberated on the CBI Director’s confidential note before making its recommendation.”
“The Committee found no verified material on record to justify withholding Rakesh Asthana’s promotion.”
“The Vigilance Commission does not act on last-minute complaints unless there is substantive proof of misconduct.”
“The Supreme Court cannot interfere in executive decisions unless clear legal violations are established.”

The Court emphasized that judicial review is not a merit review. As long as the appointment process follows statutory provisions, the judiciary cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Selection Committee.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Appointments of senior officers in CBI must follow procedural safeguards, but courts will not intervene unless clear violations occur.
Judicial review of executive appointments is limited to procedural fairness, not personal suitability.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles established in Vineet Narain’s case but found no breach of those guidelines in Asthana’s appointment.
Last-minute complaints aimed at stalling promotions will not be entertained unless supported by strong evidence.
The ruling strengthens the authority of the Selection Committee in making high-level appointments in the CBI.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case sets an important precedent for government appointments. It upholds the principle that promotions must be challenged on legal grounds, not on allegations in news reports. The ruling also reinforces that judicial interference in administrative decisions is limited to checking procedural compliance, not reevaluating executive choices.

By dismissing the petition, the Court has upheld the integrity of the appointment process while leaving room for legal action if credible evidence of misconduct emerges in the future.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Common Cause vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category