The Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken cognizance of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the state government's decision to entrust IAS officer Sanjay Gupta with the additional charge of chief secretary, despite three FIRs allegedly pending against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi issued notices to the state government, Gupta, and the central government, seeking their responses.
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed contending that the state government's order dated October 1, 2025, granting Gupta the additional charge of chief secretary, was arbitrary and against the principles of good governance. Gupta, a 1988-batch IAS officer, is scheduled to superannuate on May 31. The petitioner argued that the primary objective of the PIL was to strengthen the institutional mechanism promoting integrity among government officers, asserting that impeccable integrity is even more essential than competence for appointments to senior administrative positions.
Allegations of Corruption
The petitioner claimed that three FIRs were already registered against Gupta under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are pending investigation and trial since 1996, 2008, and 2009. It was further argued that revised guidelines issued on October 9, 2024, regarding vigilance clearance for All India Service (AIS) officers and central civil services require the competent authority to examine vigilance status before appointments to sensitive posts are made.
Legal Precedents Cited
The petitioner also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu (1974), contending that the post of chief secretary is considered a highly sensitive position. Referring to the case of former chief secretary Prabodh Saxena, the court was informed that this was not the first instance in Himachal where an officer facing questions over integrity was posted to the top position. The petitioner therefore stressed the need for a standard operating procedure or a comprehensive checklist to prevent officers of doubtful integrity from being appointed to such sensitive posts in future.
Court's Direction
The high court has directed the respondents to file their reply before the next hearing on July 21. The division bench observed that the grievance raised pertains to the state government's decision dated October 1, 2025, through which Gupta was handed the additional charge of the office of chief secretary.
Implications
This case highlights the ongoing debate about the importance of integrity in senior administrative positions. The court's decision to issue notices indicates that it is taking the matter seriously and will examine the legality of the appointment in light of the pending corruption cases. The outcome could set a precedent for future appointments of senior officers in the state and across the country.
