Send reminders, start contempt proceedings: SC directs UPSC to act against states for delaying DGP appointments

In the Prakash Singh case, the Supreme Court had in September 2006, laid down that “the Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force.”

It had said that “once he has been selected for the job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. The DGP may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upon any action taken against him under the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his duties”.

In July 2018, further refining this, the Supreme Court directed all states to send their proposals to the UPSC in anticipation of the vacancies, at least three months before the serving DGP retired. The UPSC, it said, should prepare a panel from among those names, as per the court’s earlier directions, and forward it to the states, which should “immediately appoint” one of the recommended candidates.

‘Endorse UPSC concerns’

Appearing for the Commission, Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik said many states were delaying the sending of names and appointing ad-hoc DGPs. Agreeing with the concerns expressed by the counsel, the bench, however, said that Telangana will be left without a DGP if it allowed its appeal. It said that the Commission should have sought contempt of court proceedings when the state delayed.

“Please do not be trapped by the states, they do not want DGP, they want some acting DGP, ad-hoc DGP, that suits them,” the CJI said.

The court said in its order, “We fully endorse the concerns raised by the UPSC, consequently… in order to ensure that there is no violation of the directions in Prakash Singh case, we hereby give authority to the UPSC to firstly write to the State Governments to send timely proposals for appointment of regular DGPs, whenever such occasion arises, and in the event the proposal is not timely submitted, we direct the UPSC to move an appropriate application before this court in Prakash Singh’s Case. It goes without saying that necessary consequences, including accountability for those responsible for the delay, will follow.”

It further said, “We appreciate the objection of the Commission that there is a serious omission on the part of the State (of Telangana) in not submitting a timely proposal for the convening of Empanelment Committee Meeting (ECM). Various senior police officers have, in the meanwhile been retired on superannuation or have been overlooked/ superseded by the State.”

The order added, “However, we find that the appellant Commission’s objection will aggravate the situation and indirectly will help in the appointing states in not making appointments of a regular DGP. That being contrary to the scheme and spirit of the mandate given by this Court in the Prakash Singh Case, we hold without any hesitation, that the Commission should convene the ECM at the earliest, make recommendations for the appointment of the DGP for Telangana at the earliest.”

The bench said, “It goes without saying that the UPSC shall determine the eligibility of the officers who are currently under consideration and shall accordingly determine…for this, the Commission is granted additional 4 weeks’ time.”