The Supreme Court of India has taken a firm stance against state governments that delay the appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs), empowering the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to send reminders and initiate contempt proceedings against non-compliant states. This significant development came during a hearing on Thursday, where the court expressed strong disapproval of the prevalent practice of states opting for ad-hoc DGP appointments instead of following established procedures.
Background of the Case
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a plea filed by the UPSC. The Commission challenged a January 9, 2025, directive from the Telangana High Court, which had ordered the completion of the DGP selection process for Telangana within four weeks. This legal tussle highlights the ongoing tensions between state governments and central bodies over police appointments.
Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines
On January 1, 2025, the Telangana state government submitted a panel of IPS officers eligible for DGP appointment. However, the UPSC returned this proposal, citing non-compliance with the 2018 Supreme Court guidelines established in the landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India case. The Commission pointed out that Telangana had failed to make any recommendations since the retirement of its last DGP in 2017, a clear violation of the court's directives.
The Prakash Singh case, decided in September 2006, laid down crucial guidelines for DGP appointments. It mandated that states select DGPs from a panel of three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC, based on their service length, excellent record, and extensive experience. Furthermore, the appointed DGP must serve a minimum tenure of two years, regardless of their superannuation date, unless removed for disciplinary reasons, criminal conviction, corruption, or incapacity.
Refinement of Guidelines in 2018
In July 2018, the Supreme Court further refined these guidelines, directing all states to send their DGP appointment proposals to the UPSC at least three months before the incumbent DGP's retirement. The UPSC is then required to prepare a panel from these names and forward it to the states, which must immediately appoint one of the recommended candidates. This proactive approach was designed to prevent vacancies and ensure smooth transitions in police leadership.
Court's Observations and Order
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik, representing the UPSC, highlighted that many states were deliberately delaying the submission of names and appointing ad-hoc DGPs instead. The bench acknowledged these concerns, noting that such practices undermine the rule of law and police autonomy.
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, "Please do not be trapped by the states, they do not want DGP, they want some acting DGP, ad-hoc DGP, that suits them." This statement underscores the court's suspicion that states prefer temporary appointments to avoid accountability and maintain political control over police forces.
In its order, the court fully endorsed the UPSC's concerns and granted the Commission explicit authority to address delays. The bench stated, "We hereby give authority to the UPSC to firstly write to the State Governments to send timely proposals for appointment of regular DGPs, whenever such occasion arises, and in the event the proposal is not timely submitted, we direct the UPSC to move an appropriate application before this court in Prakash Singh's Case."
The order emphasized that necessary consequences, including accountability for those responsible for delays, would follow. This move aims to enforce compliance with the Prakash Singh guidelines and prevent states from circumventing established procedures.
Specific Directions for Telangana
While criticizing Telangana for its failure to submit timely proposals, the court recognized that denying the state a DGP would exacerbate the situation. The bench noted that various senior police officers in Telangana had retired or been overlooked due to the delay, creating a leadership vacuum.
Consequently, the court directed the UPSC to convene the Empanelment Committee Meeting (ECM) at the earliest and make recommendations for Telangana's DGP appointment. The Commission was granted an additional four weeks to determine the eligibility of officers under consideration, ensuring a fair and expedited process.
Implications for Police Reforms
This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's commitment to police reforms and the principles established in the Prakash Singh case. By empowering the UPSC to take proactive measures, the court aims to:
- Ensure timely DGP appointments across all states.
- Prevent the appointment of ad-hoc or acting DGPs that lack stability and independence.
- Hold state governments accountable for delays that compromise police administration.
- Strengthen the role of the UPSC in maintaining transparency and meritocracy in police appointments.
The decision sends a clear message to state governments that non-compliance with judicial directives will not be tolerated. It also highlights the ongoing challenges in implementing police reforms in India, where political interference often hinders the appointment of independent and professional police leadership.
As states grapple with these new directives, the UPSC's enhanced role is expected to bring greater discipline and adherence to constitutional norms in DGP appointments, ultimately contributing to a more robust and accountable police force in the country.
