Follow law to appoint DGP, or abide by norms laid down by court, says SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday said states that have enacted a separate Act for the appointment of the director general of police (DGP) will have to follow the law but in its absence, they will have to follow the guidelines laid down by the apex court.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi closed the contempt proceedings initiated against Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana after having sent a proposal to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for suggesting names of officers to be appointed as State DGPs.
“We are very clear that states having valid Act in place will have to follow the law in appointment of DGPs and those who are not having it will have to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case,” the bench clarified after it was pointed out that Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh have enacted a separate law for the appointment of state police chief.
In the Prakash Singh case, which relates to police reforms, the apex court had laid down guidelines that mandate the selection of DGPs from among three senior-most IPS officers empanelled by the UPSC and set a fixed two-year tenure for them.
Senior advocate Arunabh Chowdhury, appearing for Jharkhand, said that the state has enacted a law for DGP appointment which says that the selection of the IPS officer would be done by a committee headed by a retired High Court judge.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the West Bengal Government, submitted that the state has sent a proposal to the UPSC for suggesting names for the appointment of the police chief. CJI Surya Kant remarked in a lighter vein and said, “West Bengal is more interested in transporting DGPs to the Rajya Sabha. Hopefully, now it will get a stable DGP as there are no vacancies in the Rajya Sabha.”
Recently, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) Government in West Bengal nominated former DGP Rajeev Kumar as a candidate for Rajya Sabha along with senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who represents the state in the apex court.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who has been appointed as amicus curiae in the case, said that the apex court had earlier in the Prakash Singh case stated that they will have to send the names of eligible police officers to the UPSC, which in turn will suggest three names of IPS officers for appointment as DGP.
He said that there was a separate plea which seeks to appoint the DGP by the panel of the chief minister, the leader of opposition in the state assembly and the chief justice of the High Court but he was not supporting it.
“I am of the view that the post of DGP, chief secretary and home secretary should be selected by the Government in power and not by a panel, as it is a matter of confidence. The Government of the day must have confidence in these top officers of the state as it helps in governance,” Ramachandran said.
The bench agreed with the view of the amicus and observed that the appointment of the DGP should not be broadened to be done by a panel. The top court sought a response from the Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand Governments on the appointment of DGPs in two weeks.
On February 5, taking serious note of the inordinate delay by several states in sending proposals for the appointment of DGPs, the apex court had authorised the UPSC to bring such instances to its notice.
The apex court had granted four weeks to the UPSC to convene a meeting and make a recommendation for the appointment of a DGP for Telangana, where the last regular DGP retired in 2017.
It had endorsed the concern expressed by the UPSC regarding the inordinate delay on the part of several states in sending proposals for the appointment of DGPs in terms of the top court’s directions in the Prakash Singh case.
The UPSC had told the bench that the delay on the part of the states deprives meritorious and senior officers from being considered for appointment as DGP.
The Commission had said several states keep on delaying sending the proposal for the appointment of DGP in total disregard of the apex court’s directions and an ad-hoc arrangement by appointing the acting DGP was being preferred instead of a regular appointment.
