The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave a rude shock to the states by stripping them of their power to appoint a Director General of Police (DGP) of their own choice. Henceforth, DGPs will be selected from a panel of senior IPS officers prepared by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) as laid down by the top court in its police reforms judgment of September 22, 2006.
The states which were bound by the 2006 verdict had revolted against the decision claiming that 'police' and 'public order' are subjects in the State List, and hence the choice of the head of police force in the state was a matter to be decided exclusively by the state governments. Punjab, Bihar, Haryana, West Bengal and Kerala filed applications in the Court questioning the logic behind depriving state governments of their power to choose the DGP.
Dismissing the applications filed by the five states, the bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices LN Rao and SK Kaul said: "On an in-depth consideration, we are left with no doubt that the said directions, keeping in mind the spirit in which the Court has proceeded to issue the same in Prakash Singh case (on police reforms) are wholesome. If the same are implemented, it will subserve public interest until such time that the matter is heard finally."
The Court took assistance from the UPSC secretary Rakesh Kumar Gupta present in Court on a short notice. On a query about the practice adopted by UPSC following the Prakash Singh judgment, Gupta said that a committee comprising representatives of UPSC, Central government and the concerned state government prepares a panel of eligible officers in the rank of DGP or Additional DGP for that state. It is left open for the state to choose any one out of the recommended panel of names. He informed the SC that the practice is followed in 12 states while four other states have submitted requests to set up similar panels.
The order came as a setback to the states. Punjab had amended the Punjab Police Act 2007 in the year 2018 followed by similar amendments carried out by other states. The states quoted Article 320 of the Constitution which limits the function of UPSC to provide states consultation on appointment, transfer or promotion related to civil services and posts.
The Centre, represented by attorney general KK Venugopal took a stand that the All India Services as a subject fell under the domain of the Union List. Hence, UPSC was capable to select DGPs. However, to balance the federal structure, the Committee to select DGP had representatives of both Centre and states.
The bench examined all aspects and stuck by the logic of the SC given in the 2006 decision. It said, "The commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be to the rule of law. The supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures."
In the opinion of the Court, to insulate the police machinery from political or executive interference, the selection of the DGP has to be the starting point.
Uniform Rules
Apex Court bench dismisses applications filed by five states
- Punjab, West Bengal, Kerala, Bihar and Haryana had filed pleas to appoint DGP of their own choice through an internal committee
- The states claimed that ‘police’ and ‘public order’ are subjects in the State list, hence they should be allowed to appoint the DGP
- States quoted Article 320 of the Constitution which limits the function of UPSC to provide states consultation on appointment, transfer or promotion related to civil services and posts
- SC’s 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh had ordered that UPSC would prepare a panel of senior police officers from which a state can choose the DGP
- States told to send proposals regarding appointment of next DGP to the UPSC three months before the date of retirement of the incumbent
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}