GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P GAUTAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVERNMENT cannot be relied upon to behave voluntarily as the Constitution demands. Neither the effective maintenance of structural checks and balances, nor the adequate discharge of government's affirmative [minimal or expansive] obligations, are likely without some form of intervention from a point at least partially outside of ordinary majoritarian politics (1) (American Constitutional Law - Lawrence H. Tribe - 2nd Edition - Foundation Press) Judicial review provides the legitimate intervention that could steer the course of governance back on course, when it loses sight of the constitutional destination.

(2.) THE judicial process is after all a major ingredient of freedom, despite a government under a constitutional order. The present lis is illustrative of continual executive pre-occupation with a fundamental misconception; that un- canalized, uncharted, unregulated and absolute discretion is essential for effective governance. The rigor of history of structured societies and their formal institutions of governance, ancient, medieval or modern and regardless of the architecture of governance, emphatically belies this assumption. The millenary engagement with the misconception, however continues unabated.

(3.) A medley of averments notwithstanding, the core challenge presented by Gautam Kumar before the Tribunal to the appointment of Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF) was on the substantive ground that the appointment transgressed the mandatory directive in Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India (2) 2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 30 (SC) = 2006 (8) SCJ 577 = (2006) 8 SCC 1 = 2007 (2) ALT 2.3 (DN SC) and on an attendant grievance that no due consideration was accorded to his seniority vis-a-vis Dinesh Reddy.