Supreme Court sends contempt notices to 8 states over DGP appointments
- In Reports
- 04:04 PM, Oct 16, 2024
- Myind Staff
The Supreme Court has dispatched contempt notice to the chief secretaries of eight states for appointing ad-hoc directors general of police (DGPs) in violation of its 2006 ruling. The ruling mandates that police chiefs be selected from the top three senior-most officers in a state, with a tenure of at least two years. The court's order came on Monday, following a petition by Haryana-based petitioner Vinod Kumar, who challenged the ad-hoc appointments of DGPs in Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Bihar.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, alongside justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stated that although the alleged contemnors typically must appear in court, in this instance, their personal presence would not be required. However, the States' chief secretaries and acting DGPs must submit their responses by October 21, the next hearing date.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Vinod Kumar, argued that these ad-hoc appointments flout the Supreme Court's 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh v Union of India. This ruling clearly dictates that States must consult the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and submit names of eligible officers at least three months before the current DGP retires. The UPSC then compiles a panel of three officers, from which the state selects its new DGP.
“We have provided details of the officers who have been appointed in these eight states. The most glaring issue is in Uttar Pradesh, where acting DGP Prashant Kumar is ranked 19th in the seniority list and does not fall within the required zone of consideration,” said Sankaranarayanan.
This petition was heard together with another contempt petition by Naresh Makani, challenging the appointment of Jharkhand’s acting DGP Anurag Gupta, a 1990-batch IPS officer appointed on July 25, 2024. In response to Makani's plea, the Supreme Court had already issued contempt notices on September 6 to Jharkhand chief secretary Lalbiaktluanga Khiangte, UPSC chairperson Preeti Sudan, MHA additional secretary Piyush Goyal, and Anurag Gupta.
Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, representing Makani, emphasised that the issue was urgent due to Jharkhand's upcoming elections, where the DGP's role would be significant.
The court noted that in several states, the acting DGPs have been in position for extended periods. In Punjab, ad-hoc DGP Gaurav Yadav has held the post since July 2022, Utkal Ranjan Sahoo became acting DGP in Rajasthan in December 2023, and Prashant Kumar was made ad-hoc DGP in Uttar Pradesh in January this year.
Vinod Kumar’s petition argued that the appointments violate the Supreme Court's 2006 ruling, which was further clarified in July 2018. At that time, the court explicitly stated, “None of the states shall ever conceive of the idea of appointing any person on the post of DGP on an acting basis, as there is no concept of an acting DGP as per the decision in Prakash Singh case.” The court reiterated that states must submit a list of eligible officers to the UPSC at least three months before the DGP position is vacated.
On September 30, the Supreme Court also issued a notice on a writ petition filed by lawyer Savitri Pandey, urging the Centre and eight states to comply with the Prakash Singh principles and avoid delays in appointing regular DGPs. Pandey's list of states mirrored the contempt petition, with the exception of Odisha, where a regular DGP was appointed in August instead of Rajasthan.
The contempt petitions also highlighted that several states have appointed IPS officers who are due to retire within a year, which would shorten their tenure as DGP. The Prakash Singh judgment was intended to ensure a fixed tenure for police chiefs, providing stability and continuity in police leadership.
Prakash Singh, a decorated police officer and former DGP of Uttar Pradesh and Assam, originally approached the Supreme Court in 1996 seeking reforms in police administration. His key objectives were to separate law and order from investigative duties and to secure fixed tenures for DGPs, safeguarding them from arbitrary transfers by political authorities. The Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling led to the creation of police establishment boards for transfers, postings, and promotions, as well as police complaints authorities to address public grievances against police officers.
Comments