The Telangana High Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the state government's apparent failure to follow Supreme Court directives regarding the appointment of a full-time Director General of Police (DGP). The court has directed the government to clarify its position and explain the alleged non-compliance, scheduling the next hearing for December 22.
Court's Stern Rebuke to State Government
Justice Pulla Karthik, presiding over the hearing, pointedly questioned the state's adherence to the apex court's mandate. "First comply with the Supreme Court order. Is it not binding on the state or not?" the judge asserted, emphasizing the obligatory nature of the directives. The bench made it clear that the state must follow the established legal process without delay.
Petition Challenges Current DGP's Appointment
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by T Dhangopal Rao, a Hyderabad-based social activist. The petition challenges the appointment of B Shivadhar Reddy as the DGP (Head of Police Force) for Telangana. Rao's argument hinges on a violation of the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 judgment in the Prakash Singh vs. Union of India case.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court mandated that no state should appoint a police chief on an acting or temporary basis. It directed all states to send proposals for DGP vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months prior to the incumbent's retirement. This process ensures a permanent appointment is made from a panel of eligible officers approved by the UPSC.
RTI Revelation and State's Defence
The petitioner presented a crucial piece of evidence: a response to a Right to Information (RTI) query from the UPSC itself. The commission's reply stated that no empanelment committee meeting had been conducted for the Telangana DGP post. "This proves the state failed to send the required list of eligible IPS officers to the UPSC, thereby bypassing the legal process for a permanent appointment," argued the petitioner's counsel.
In response, Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, representing the state, offered a different narrative. He informed the court that a panel of names had indeed been submitted to the UPSC. However, he stated that the commission had sought certain clarifications, and the subsequent retirement of some officers from the list had complicated the procedure.
The Advocate General also raised a jurisdictional objection, contending that a quo-warranto writ (which challenges a person's right to hold public office) was not the appropriate remedy. He suggested that any alleged violation of Supreme Court orders should be pursued through contempt proceedings directly in the Supreme Court. He, however, acknowledged that the state is bound by the Supreme Court's directions and sought time to obtain written instructions from the government.
Matter Adjourned, Interim Relief Denied
The court declined to issue any interim orders at this stage. However, it made a significant observation, directing the Advocate General to "get it" if the state has complied with the Supreme Court orders, implying the need for concrete proof. The bench then adjourned the matter, ordering the state to file its detailed explanation by the next date of hearing, December 22.
