The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition that questioned the integrity of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and alleged undue influence in the selection of Anjali Birla, daughter of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, as a civil servant. The petitioner, advocate CR Jaya Sukin, had sought an investigation into Anjali Birla’s inclusion in the list of selected candidates for the UPSC Civil Services examination, suggesting that her appointment may have been influenced by her father’s political stature. The court, however, found the allegations baseless, lacking any credible evidence, and underscored the importance of not casting aspersions on a constitutionally established institution like the UPSC without substantive proof.
The petitioner's primary contention revolved around Anjali Birla's name appearing in the UPSC reserve list in 2019. He argued that this raised suspicion because she is the daughter of a high-ranking political figure. However, the Delhi High Court firmly rejected this insinuation, emphasizing that familial ties alone cannot be a ground to presume impropriety in selection unless supported by clear and specific material evidence. The bench, led by Justice Rekha Palli, highlighted that such claims could severely damage the reputation of individuals and institutions if entertained without a factual basis.
The court also took note of the procedural transparency and integrity with which the UPSC conducts its examinations. It observed that the entire recruitment process follows a rigorous and multi-layered structure that makes arbitrary selections nearly impossible. In this context, the court found it inappropriate to allow a writ petition based on conjecture, without any official complaint, Right to Information (RTI) response, or documentary proof pointing towards wrongdoing or irregularity.
Furthermore, the judgment cautioned against the misuse of public interest litigation as a tool to malign reputations, especially in matters that directly affect individuals' careers and public perceptions of constitutional bodies. The court opined that allowing such speculative petitions would set a dangerous precedent and could open floodgates to baseless accusations against public servants and candidates. In closing, the bench dismissed the petition with a clear note that mere suspicion or personal belief cannot be a substitute for legal grounds in matters of public employment and administrative fairness.
The verdict not only upholds the credibility of the UPSC but also reinforces judicial restraint in matters lacking evidentiary foundation. It serves as a reminder that courts should not entertain speculative narratives, particularly when aimed at undermining institutional integrity or tarnishing personal reputations based on unsubstantiated claims.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.