Supreme Court asks states not to appoint politically convenient officers as DGPs

Source: Agencies

State governments should henceforth send their proposals for DGPs to the Union Public Service Commission three months before the incumbent is due to retire, it says. The UPSC will shortlist three names. The states can then appoint one of them.

A dozen years after introducing reforms to free the police from political influence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday restricted the choice of State governments in appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs).

Instead, State governments should henceforth send their proposals for DGPs to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) three months before the incumbent is due to retire, said the court.

The UPSC will prepare a panel of officers fit to be DGP in the State concerned and send them back. The State shall “immediately” appoint one of the persons shortlisted by the UPSC.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra passed a series of directions on an application for the modification of a September 22, 2006 judgment pronounced by the court in a petition filed by former IPS officer Prakash Singh for reforms and transparency in the functioning and appointments in the State police forces.

The court had passed seven directives, primarily to “ensure that State governments do not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police.”

Minimum tenure of two years

The court also directed the States to “ensure that DGP is appointed through a merit-based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years.”

On Tuesday, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal submitted that of 24 States only five — Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana and Rajasthan — have implemented the 2006 directions.

Mr. Venugopal submitted that some State governments even go to the extent of appointing their “favourite” officers as DGP just before their superannuation so that they could continue in service after retirement date. He added that some States appointed “acting DGPs.”

The CJI said such “subterfuges” cannot be acceptable “by any analysis of the judgment” of 2006. “There is no concept of acting DGPs,” the court ordered.

The States shall appoint “a person as permanent DGP.” That person shall continue for two years despite the date of superannuation. The States shall “avoid” appointing a person as DGP just before his or her superannuation and let them continue for the next two years.

Also Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said the state should ensure that the appointed police officer has a sufficient period of service left, PTI reported.

“The practice of allowing the appointee to continue for an additional 2 years post the superannuation only at the last stage should be reasonably avoided”, the bench, also comprising Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and A. M. Khanwilkar, directed.

However, it was clarified that the said direction may not be construed to mean that the UPSC may empanel, for the purpose of selection as the DGP, only those officers who have a clear 2 years of service remaining.

Continuing, the bench obligated all states to send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancy to the UPSC well in time, that is, 3 months prior to the retirement of the incumbent, whereupon, the UPSC shall prepare the panel of the three senior most officers of the Department based on their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force, as stipulated by the Prakash Singh judgment.

The Bench also directed that any legislations/rules that may have been framed by the states which affect the 2006 judgment shall remain in abeyance, granting liberty to any state having an issue with these directions to approach the apex court in an application for amendment.

The hearing on Monday commenced with AG K. K. Venugopal submitting, “the practice being adopted by several states is that, first, an acting DGP is appointed. Then, as he is about to retire, he is appointed as the regular DGP, and he thereby gets 2 years extra on account of the Prakash Singh judgment…”

“The incumbent must retire at the age of 60…”, the CJI noted.

At this point, Advocate Prashant Bhushan drew the attention of the bench to Direction (2) issued in the Prakash Singh judgment, providing that once an officer has been selected for the job of the DGP, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation.

“Many states are appointing an acting DGP, instead of following the 2006 judgment, where the UPSC shortlists 3 most suitable persons, of which the government appoints one…the purpose is to see if the person so appointed is complying with the orders of the state government or not…”, continued Mr. Bhushan.

“We have stayed the GSR 68E [dated January 28, 2014, issued by the DoPT to amend the IPS (Cadre) Rules of 1954] which made the minimum tenure of 2 years subject to the date of superannuation…that was wrong…now they are only saying that they will appoint one who has atleast 2 more years in service…”, interjected Justice Chandrachud.

“The judgment is being complied with…”, concurred the CJI. “If you eliminate those who have less than 2 years of service remaining will reduce the range of the officers…”, persisted Mr. Bhushan.

Detailed story on http://www.livelaw.in/states-cant-appoint-acting-director-general-of-police-dgp-sc/