The Bombay High Court on Monday declined to urgently hear a petition challenging the appointment of Rashmi Shukla as Maharashtra's Director General of Police (DGP) and the subsequent temporary appointment of Sanjay Verma.

A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar questioned the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, noting that such petitions must benefit the public and not individual grievances.

"A PIL relaxes the locus, but it has to be seen for whom. A PIL is filed for the public in general, not for an aggrieved IPS officer," the Court said.

The PIL filed by lawyer Pratul Bhadale challenged Shukla's appointment as DGP in January 2024, arguing that the State government violated Supreme Court guidelines, which require a minimum tenure of two years for a police officer in the DGP post.

The petition also raised concerns about Shukla’s appointment in January 2024, claiming that her impending retirement should have precluded her appointment as DGP.

The petition contended that Shukla's extension until June 2026, despite her impending retirement in June 2024, was arbitrary and lacked proper justification.

The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments on police leadership tenure. It sought the court to review the files related to both Shukla’s and Verma’s appointments and annul the extension granted to Shukla.

In addition to challenging Shukla’s appointment, the PIL also objected to the “conditional” appointment of IPS officer Sanjay Verma as temporary DGP.

Verma was appointed on November 5, 2024, following Shukla’s removal at the direction of the Election Commission of India (ECI), ahead of the Maharashtra Assembly elections.

The ECI had instructed the State to appoint a temporary DGP, with Verma’s appointment being contingent upon the completion of the election process.

The petition argued that Verma’s "conditional" appointment undermines his independence and ability to perform his duties effectively during the election period.

It further contended that the State’s decision to appoint Verma in this manner violated the ECI’s guidelines, which did not specify such a limitation. The PIL sought to have both Verma’s temporary appointment and Shukla’s extension declared illegal.

The bench questioned the petitioner's locus in the matter, asking why the aggrieved parties—Shukla and Verma—had not themselves filed the case.

"The person who is appointed as temporary should come. He has not come. What is the public cause in this?" the court asked.

The bench also noted that the State government had followed the ECI's directive regarding the temporary appointment of Verma.

“The purpose is that the ECI has powers till the elections,” the Court remarked.

The Court ultimately decided that the matter would be heard in due course and would not be expedited.

While the bench did not set a date for further hearings, it stated that the matter would be auto-listed for a regular hearing.