2019 (3) TMI 1916 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets 6-month tenure for DGP appointment to ensure merit-based selection

The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to Police Acts by various States for not aligning with directions in the Prakash Singh case. It clarified that ... Selection and minimum tenure of DGP - minimum residual tenure required - HELD THAT:- What was emphasized in Prakash Singh [2006 (9) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] is a minimum tenure of two years for an incumbent once he is appointed as the Director General of Police. The direction issued by this Court neither contemplated the appointment of a Director General of Police on the eve of his retirement nor the practice now adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in making the empanelment, i.e. empanelling officers who have at least two years of tenure. Neither this Court had contemplated recommendation for appointment of officers who are on the verge of retirement or appointment of officers who have a minimum residual tenure of two years. The emphasis was to select the best and to ensure a minimum tenure of two years' service of such officer who is to be selected and appointed. The Police Acts enacted also do not contemplate any fixed residual tenure for an officer to be recommended for appointment as the Director General of Police of a State - Recommendations for appointment of the Director General of Police on the eve of retirement of the incumbent or of the Union Public Service Commission in embarking upon a course of action which may have the effect of overlooking efficient and eligible officers will stand obviated by the above direction which we had deemed to be fit and proper to issue. Application disposed off. Issues:Challenge to Police Acts enacted by different States in light of directions in Prakash Singh case. Clarification sought regarding appointment of Director General of Police and empanelment process by Union Public Service Commission.Analysis:In the judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the challenge posed by Writ Petition (Civil) No. 286 of 2013, which questioned the validity of Police Acts enacted by various States for not aligning with the directions in the Prakash Singh case. The primary contention was that these enactments contradicted the directions laid down by the Court in the Prakash Singh case. The applicants filed a petition seeking clarification on the directions issued in the Court's order dated 3rd July, 2018, specifically focusing on clauses (e) and (f) of the directions. The applicants raised concerns about the practice of States appointing the Director General of Police on the last day of the incumbent's tenure to ensure an extended term of two years. However, they argued that the Union Public Service Commission's empanelment process was excluding suitable officers due to the requirement of a minimum residual tenure of two years.The Court emphasized that the essence of the Prakash Singh case was to ensure a minimum tenure of two years for the Director General of Police once appointed, emphasizing merit-based selection and insulating the office from external influences. The Court noted that neither the appointment on the eve of retirement nor the current empanelment practice by the Union Public Service Commission aligned with the Court's directions. To address these issues and uphold the spirit of the Prakash Singh case, the Court proposed a reasonable solution. It suggested fixing a residual tenure of six months for officers recommended for the Director General of Police position to prevent favoritism and ensure the selection of efficient and eligible candidates.Consequently, the Court clarified that the recommendation and empanelment for the Director General of Police post should be based on merit from officers with a minimum residual tenure of six months, i.e., those with at least six months of service before retirement. This direction was intended to remain in effect until the validity of Police Acts, which contradict this clarification, is examined in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 286 of 2013. By issuing this clarification, the Court aimed to address the concerns raised by the applicants and ensure a fair and transparent process for the appointment of the Director General of Police in the States.