The Telangana High Court on Thursday voiced strong disapproval over the state government's handling of appointing a full-time Director General of Police (DGP). The bench, led by Justice Pulla Karthik, demanded the government clarify its position on allegedly failing to follow Supreme Court directives, adjourning the hearing to December 22 for a detailed response.
Court's Stern Directive to the State
During the hearing, Justice Karthik pointedly asked the state to adhere to the apex court's binding orders. "First comply with the Supreme Court order. Is it binding on the state or not?" the judge questioned. The court was reviewing a public interest litigation filed by Hyderabad-based social activist T Dhangopal Rao. The petition challenged the appointment of B Shivadhar Reddy as the DGP, arguing it violated a crucial 2018 Supreme Court mandate.
The petitioner's argument centered on the landmark Prakash Singh versus Union of India judgment. In that ruling, the Supreme Court explicitly prohibited states from appointing DGPs on an ad hoc or temporary basis. It mandated a rigorous process where states must send proposals for DGP vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months before the incumbent officer's retirement. This ensures a permanent appointment is made from a panel of candidates approved by the UPSC.
Petitioner's Allegations and State's Defense
Rao presented a significant piece of evidence: a response obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the UPSC. The commission's reply stated that no empanelment committee meeting was held to shortlist names 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," the petitioner contended. He further urged the court to invalidate the Telangana Police (Selection and Appointment of DGP (HoPF) Act, 2018, calling it a "colourable legislation" that contradicts Supreme Court directions.
Opposing the petition, Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy presented the state's side. He informed the court that a panel of names had indeed been submitted to the UPSC. However, he explained that the process was delayed as the commission sought clarifications and the retirement timelines of some officers created complications. The AG argued that a writ of quo warranto was not the appropriate legal remedy in this case. He suggested any alleged violation of Supreme Court directions should be addressed through contempt proceedings before the apex court itself. Despite this, he acknowledged the state's obligation to follow the Supreme Court's orders and requested time to obtain detailed instructions.
Adjournment and Future Proceedings
The court declined to issue any interim orders at this stage. Instead, it directed the Advocate General to file written instructions detailing the state's compliance. The matter has been posted for further hearing on December 22. The court's intervention highlights the ongoing tension between state governments and judicial mandates aimed at ensuring transparency and due process in the appointment of top police officials, a key element in preserving police autonomy and integrity.
