High Court Sets Four-Week Deadline for Haryana in PIL Against Retired DGP's Appointment
The Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a firm directive to the Haryana government on Monday. The court granted the state exactly four weeks to submit its response in a significant public interest litigation. This PIL challenges the controversial appointment of a retired Director General of Police as the chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority.
Court Issues Stern Warning Over Delays
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Neerja Kulwant Kalson issued a clear warning. The Bench stated that any further delay would result in the state losing its right to file a reply altogether. The court noted with concern that despite receiving an official notice back on August 29, 2025, the Haryana government had still not presented its response.
The interim order was explicit. If the state fails to file its reply within the allotted four weeks, its right to do so will be automatically forfeited. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on February 26, 2026.
Legal Challenge Questions Appointment's Legality
Senior advocate Rajesh Garg presented the petitioner's case before the court. The core argument questions the very legality of appointing a retired senior police officer to lead the Police Complaints Authority. This body was established following a landmark 2006 Supreme Court judgment in the Prakash Singh case.
Garg emphasized a critical point to the Bench. He stated that the Supreme Court's original directive was clear. Police Complaints Authorities across India should be headed by retired High Court judges. He outlined the legislative history in Haryana.
- The state enacted a law in 2007 allowing the post to be held by either a retired High Court judge or a retired civil servant.
- This provision was diluted just one year later in 2008.
- The amended law permitted the appointment of any "person of eminence" with experience in administration or law.
It was under this broader, diluted provision that a retired Haryana DGP was appointed as chairperson.
Precedent from Chandigarh Cited in Court
Advocate Garg drew the court's attention to a relevant precedent. He cited a 2015 Division Bench judgment from the same High Court concerning a similar case in Chandigarh. In that instance, the court quashed the appointment of a retired Indian Economic Service officer as chairperson of the authority.
The 2015 judgment held that appointment to be contrary to the Supreme Court's explicit directions. Garg pointed out that this judgment was never challenged before the Supreme Court and has therefore attained finality. Following that ruling, Chandigarh appointed a retired High Court judge to head its authority.
State's Contention and Petitioner's Clarification
Responding to the state's argument that the Prakash Singh matter remains pending before the Supreme Court, Garg offered a crucial clarification. He stated that the pending issue relates solely to the fixed tenure of Directors General of Police. It does not concern the composition of Police Complaints Authorities.
Garg also referenced a subsequent Supreme Court order. This order states that any state law running contrary to the 2006 directions should be kept in abeyance.
Judicial Concern Over Procedural Delays
During the hearing, the Bench expressed clear dissatisfaction with the state's continued failure to file a reply. Chief Justice Nagu observed that while one respondent had filed a response, the state itself had not, despite having ample opportunity.
When the petitioner sought interim relief, the court indicated that granting such relief at this stage would amount to a final decision. However, the Bench made its position unmistakable. The issue will be taken up for consideration only after all pleadings are complete. The court stressed that the state cannot be permitted to delay the proceedings indefinitely.
"This is why a peremptory order is being passed," Chief Justice Nagu observed, while fixing the final hearing for the last week of February.
