PIL Challenged Appointment Of CBI Director Withdrawn From Bombay High Court, ‘Infructuous’

The Bombay High Court in the case Rajendrakumar Vishwanath Trivedi vs The Union of India & Ors observed wherein the Public Interest Litigation, PIL is moved challenging the appointment of IPS officer Subodh Kumar Jaiswal as the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court was informed that the office term had ended rendering the PIL infructuous. The said position is now held by IPS officer Praveen Sood.
The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing the PIL.
The bench in it’s order stated that the Learned Additional Solicitor General informs the Court that the term of Respondent No.3 as a Director, Central Bureau of Investigation has come to an end on May 25, 2023, which has rendered the PIL Petition infructuous.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the PIL Petition.
The plea moved alleged that the Jaiswal did not have the required experience to be the director CBI under section 4A of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Adding to it, the court stated the strictures were passed by both – the Sessions Court as well as the Supreme Court in respect of the investigation carried out by a Special Investigation Team under his leadership.
Further, the PIL moved seek directions to quash the appointment of Jaiswal as the Director of the Centra l Bureau of Investigation after calling for the record and proceedings regarding the appointment.
The court also seek to call upon Jaiswal to show under what authority was is holding or occupying the post of Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
However, Jaiswal is the 1985 batch IPS Officer. Thus, he was being appointed to head the SIT in the famous Telgi Stamp Scam running into hundreds of crores of rupees in the year 2002.
Therefore, the strikes were being passed against the SIT and Jaiswal regarding faulty investigation in the year 2007.
Jaiswal was being appointed as the Director CBI despite his lack of expertise in anti-corruption cases as required under section 4A of the DSPE Act and without determining his integrity and credibility. Therefore, all the allegations against the Jaiswal refuted his appointment. The counsel, Adv S. B. Talekar a/w. Ms. Madhavi Ayappan I/b. Talekar& Associates appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, ASG Devang Vyas Addl Solicitor General a/w. Mr. D. P. Singh and Mrs. Anusha Amin represented for the Respondent Nos.1 2 and 4.