New Delhi, Jan. 4: Differences among judges over the Supreme Court’s powers to entertain public interest matters spilled out into the open today.

When Justice Markandey Katju brushed off a petition, saying it did not fall under the court’s jurisdiction, his senior colleague, Justice H.K. Sema, would have none of it.

Hearing a PIL filed by the NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, against the appointment of P.C. Pandey as Gujarat director-general of police two years ago, Katju, the author of the much-debated judicial over-reach ruling, seized the opportunity to hammer home his theory.

The counsel for the NGO, Aparna Bhatt, had barely begun her arguments when the judge interrupted her.

“It is exclusively the jurisdiction of the state government to appoint the DGP, the home secretary and others. And the judiciary has nothing to do with it,” he said. “There should be some self-restraint and judges must exercise self-restraint.”

A person to be appointed to a top post “may or may not be desirable” but that was “for the state to decide”, the judge added.

“You are challenging the appointment of a DGP…. You can even challenge the appointment of the Prime Minister. Is the judiciary supposed to deal with these issues?” he asked. “Is the judiciary going to run the government? Is there no separation of powers?”

However, he concluded, the petition was infructuous since Pandey no longer held the post.

The NGO had in 2006 challenged Pandey’s appointment as DGP, citing his inaction during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat. He was then the Ahmedabad police commissioner.

Bhatt said that although the Election Commission had removed Pandey from the post in the run-up to the recent polls, he would in all probability be re-appointed soon.

Katju shrugged off her arguments and asked her to come back if he was re-appointed. But Sema asked the NGO to file an additional affidavit within two weeks along with the Election Commission’s order on Pandey’s removal as DGP.