2018 (7) TMI 2205 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets 2-year minimum tenure for DGP, bans acting DGPs, emphasizes fair selection

Prakash Singh and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI)

The Supreme Court modified its judgment regarding the minimum tenure for the Director General of Police (DGP), emphasizing a minimum tenure of at least ... Minimum tenure for Director General of Police - the Director General of Police will continue for at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation or not - HELD THAT:- All the States shall send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission, well in time at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent on the post of Director General of Police - The State shall immediately appoint one of the persons from the panel prepared by the Union Public Service Commission. The present directions shall be followed scrupulously by the Union of India and all the States/Union Territories. If any State Government/Union Territory has a grievance with regard to these directions, liberty is granted to them to approach this Court for modification of the instant order - Application disposed off - List after two weeks. Issues:1. Modification of judgment regarding the minimum tenure for Director General of Police.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard an application for modification of a judgment regarding the minimum tenure for the Director General of Police (DGP). The original judgment prescribed a minimum tenure of at least two years for the DGP, regardless of their date of superannuation. The Court noted that out of 29 states, only 5 had followed the directive to approach the Union Public Service Commission for empanelment. It was highlighted that some states were appointing acting DGPs, which was not in line with the original judgment. The Attorney General argued that some DGPs were being made permanent just before superannuation, allowing them to continue till the age of 62. The petitioner contended that states' approach was unacceptable, emphasizing the need for the DGP to serve a minimum of two years. The intervenor stressed that the Union Public Service Commission and states must ensure fair competition by considering candidates with at least two years of service remaining.The Court issued several directions in response to the arguments presented. It mandated that states send proposals to the Union Public Service Commission well in advance of a DGP's retirement, ensuring a smooth transition. The Commission was instructed to prepare a panel as per the original judgment and inform the states accordingly. States were directed to appoint a DGP from the Commission's panel promptly. The Court prohibited the appointment of acting DGPs, emphasizing the need for a permanent appointment. It urged all parties to ensure that the selected DGP continues beyond superannuation for a reasonable period, discouraging the practice of appointing DGPs on the last day of retirement. The Court emphasized that merit and seniority should be considered in the selection process. Any legislation or rule conflicting with these directions was to be put on hold. The Court ordered strict compliance with these directions by the Union of India and all states/union territories, granting liberty to approach the Court for modifications if needed.The Court disposed of the application accordingly and scheduled the remaining matters for a hearing after two weeks.