Supreme Court restrains states from appointing acting DGPs

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday restrained all states from appointing the Director General of Police in an acting capacity, which is not permissible as per the 2006 Prakaksh Singh judgment.  A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud passed this order on a petition seeking implementation of the 2006 Prakash Singh judgment giving a series of directions to the states.  The bench said endeavour should be made by all concerned to ensure that the person selected and appointed, as DGP shall continue to hold the post despite superannuation. 

It said the states should approach the UPSC three months before the retirement of DGP. UPSC will finalise three names and state can then appoint one of them.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal informed the court that 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 thereby he gets two years extra on account of the Prakash Singh judgment, which says there must be a fixed tenure of two years. The Attorney General said only five States —  Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan —have approached the UPSC for selection of DGP and all other states have not followed the SC judgment.  

“The SC in its judgment in Prakash Singh case in 2006 had ensured that DGPs got a fixed tenure of at least two years and mandated UPSC choosing a panel of three officers fit to be appointed as DGP,” he said. Counsel Prashant Bhushan said many states are appointing acting DGP instead of following the 2006 judgment, under which the UPSC shortlists three 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 of not.   

The bench in a brief order said that endeavour should be made that a person, who had been selected and appointed as DGP, has reasonable period of service left.  “Any rule or state law on the subject of appointment of police officers will be kept at abeyance,” it said. The bench, however, granted liberty to the states, which have made laws on police appointments, to move before it seeking modification of its order. In his PIL BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay submitted that authorities concerned have not implemented the directions passed by the 2006 verdict.

He sought the implementation of the Model Police Bill, 2006, which was drafted by a panel headed by former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee. According to him the Commission had ordered setting up of a Police Complaints Authority in each state to look into complaints against officers of and above the rank of SP in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody.  “A National Security Commission needed to be set up at the Union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of chiefs of the Central Police Organisations with a minimum tenure of two years,” he said.