India’s Supreme Court has dismissed the pleas submitted by five states seeking to implement their own laws for appointing their Director General of Police (DGP). These states include Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar. They requested modifications in the apex court’s procedure for appointing DGPs. The court claimed its directions were issued for a greater public interest — to safeguard police officials from political encroachment.
The Prakash Singh Case
This follows the guidelines set in the 2006 Prakash Singh case. Here, the Supreme Court asked the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) whether they had been creating panels of senior IPS officers for each state to choose its DGP for the last decade, thus aligning with the aforementioned case’s recommendations. However, most states did not adhere to this ruling and instead enacted laws that abolished the UPSC recommended panel. The state laws provided for an internal committee to present a panel of senior IPS officers of the state cadre from whom the government could select.
Background and Previous Rulings
This judgement is the result of a December 12, 2018, order where the Supreme Court agreed to consider the states’ pleas urging them to execute their local laws concerning the selection and appointment of the police chief. In July 2018, the Supreme Court deterred state governments from appointing DGPs without first consulting the UPSC.
The court established several guidelines. State governments would have to report potential candidates to the UPSC three months before the current DGP’s retirement. The UPSC would then curate a panel of three suitable officers to become DGP and send it back. These officers should ideally have at least two years of service left and be selected based on merit and seniority. Once the UPSC shortlists these candidates, the state must “immediately” appoint one.
Further Guidelines and Instructions
| Guideline | Description |
|---|---|
| Acting DGPs | The court denied the idea of acting or temporary DGPs. It stipulated that states should appoint a permanent DGP. |
| State Law Suspension | Any rule or state law concerning the appointment of police officers should be kept in suspension. |
| Law Modification | States with laws on police appointments can apply to the Court for modifications of its order. |
Prakash Singh Case Directives and Subsequent Impact
In the Prakash Singh Case of 2006, the Supreme Court issued seven directives with the aim to introduce police reforms. These were designed to address problems like lack of accountability, politicization, system weaknesses and overall poor performance which had led to public dissatisfaction with policing.
Way Forward After Judgment
The judgment significantly curtails the political executive’s discretion in executing arbitrary transfers. It emphasizes that the police force needs to be shielded from political encroachment. The primary commitment of the police should be to uphold the rule of law, not to be subservient to individuals. Random appointments and postings compromise public service ethics and cause instability in administration. Furthermore, they make officers vulnerable to political interferences, pressures, and favoritism, paving the way for corruption.
