SC seeks response from states over ‘violations’ in DGP appointments

New Delhi, Dec 9: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from six states, including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and UP, on a plea alleging non-compliance with its directives over the appointment of directors general of police.

According to a fresh plea, seven states, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, UP, Punjab, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, and Jharkhand, did not allegedly comply with the 2006 judgement of the apex court in the Praksah Singh case and the subsequent directions on appointment of directors general of police (DGP).

The Jharkhand government filed its reply in the top court previously. The matter was brought to the attention of a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar through a plea filed by Jan Sewa Trust, alleging widespread violations of court-mandated procedures.

These include the stipulation of a two-year fixed tenure for DGPs and their selection from a panel of the three most senior and eligible IPS officers prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

The bench directed the states to submit their written responses within six weeks, allowing four weeks thereafter for rejoinders.

The court emphasised the importance of adhering to its landmark 2006 verdict in the Prakash Singh case, laying down guidelines for ensuring transparency and fairness in the appointment of police chiefs.

The top court instructed the UPSC to continue its role in preparing panels for DGP appointments and to file a status report 10 days before the next hearing, scheduled for March, 2025.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the trust, argued that states had blatantly disregarded the court’s directives.

He further referred to the rules of UP on appointment of DGP (Police), alleging it was in gross contravention to spirit and directions of the apex court’s orders.

He said UP should be restrained from using the rules in the DGP’s appointment and referred to violations by several states in such appointments.

It said the appointment of K Rajendranath Reddy as the acting DGP of Andhra Pradesh was made in February, 2022, despite him ranking 13th in the seniority list.

It then referred to an instance of Telangana and said Anjani Kumar was appointed as the acting DGP in December, 2022, bypassing senior officers from the Telangana cadre.

UP, it was alleged, repeatedly violated the norms, including the appointment of officers like Prashant Kumar, ranked 19th in seniority, as acting DGP in 2024.

The plea said Punjab allegedly sidelined a regular DGP in favour of the acting DGP, Gaurav Yadav, in 2022, in violation of court-mandated procedures.

In Uttarakhand, Abhinav Kumar, who does not belong to the Uttarakhand cadre, was appointed as the acting DGP in November, 2023.

Similar allegations were levelled against West Bengal in the plea, saying Rajeev Kumar, who was fourth in seniority, was appointed as acting DGP in January, 2024.

The appointment of an acting DGP in Jharkhand was previously challenged in contempt proceedings, prompting recent compliance efforts.

The fresh plea raised concerns about the politicisation of police appointments, arguing that ad-hoc appointments undermine the independence and effectiveness of police leadership.

It further contended that such practices eroded public trust in law enforcement while jeopardising democratic governance.

The court also noted the submissions on the recent legislative developments in states like Punjab, where the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023, proposed to empower the state government to select the DGP, bypassing UPSC recommendations.

The bill is currently awaiting the Governor’s assent.

The 2006 Prakash Singh judgment, and subsequent clarifications in 2018 and 2019, aimed to depoliticise police appointments by mandating a transparent and merit-based selection process.

However, persistent violations by several states have led to a spate of litigation, including the present plea by the trust, seeking strict enforcement of these guidelines.