HC admits PIL on extension of CS but leaves govt order intact

In a significant ruling that sought to balance concerns of institutional integrity with the boundaries of judicial intervention, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the six-month service extension granted to former Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena is maintainable. However, the court ultimately refused to interfere with the Central Government’s decision to extend his tenure.

The PIL had urged the court to quash the extension order issued on March 28, 2025, alleging that the government violated the Department of Personnel and Training’s October 9, 2024, vigilance guidelines. The petitioner argued that granting vigilance clearance to an officer facing prosecution in a corruption case raised serious questions and sought an independent inquiry into how the clearance was approved. The plea also sought disciplinary action against officials who facilitated the process.

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, along with Justice Ranjan Sharma, observed that the extension of service to an officer facing corruption charges directly touches upon institutional integrity and public confidence in transparent governance. Since the petitioner had no personal stake and had raised issues concerning systemic fairness, the court held that the matter appropriately fell within the scope of PIL jurisdiction. It therefore ruled in favour of the petitioner on the issue of maintainability.

Despite this, the Bench declined to set aside the six-month extension granted by the Centre. The judges noted that the government had offered adequate justification grounded in public interest and that the competent authority had been fully apprised of the circumstances before taking a decision. Once these factors were established, the court said it could not re-evaluate the merits of the decision as if sitting in appeal.

Finding no arbitrariness, ambiguity or procedural irregularity in the decision-making process, the Bench held that the administrative discretion exercised by the government was lawful. The ruling underscores that while courts may examine transparency in appointments to sensitive posts, the ultimate authority to grant extensions rests with the executive unless its actions are shown to be illegal, arbitrary or mala fide.