Judicial review of police empanelment remains limited to illegality, irrationality, impropriety, or bias; objective guidelines were upheld.

Judicial review of an expert police-selection process is confined to illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or bias, and courts will not reweigh comparative merit or substitute their own view for that of the empanelment body. The Draft Guidelines implementing Prakash Singh were held to provide an objective assessment method, and the identification of five core policing areas for evaluating range of experience was within the Committee's discretion and not shown to be arbitrary or contrary to law. The belated bias objection also failed because the concerned member's participation was known, no protest was raised, and waiver and acquiescence barred the challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court correctly interfered with the Tribunal's order in judicial review of the selection and empanelment process for appointment of the Director General of Police; (ii) Whether the Draft Guidelines and the identification of core policing areas were contrary to the directions in Prakash Singh and rendered the panel illegal or irrational; (iii) Whether the selection process was vitiated by bias because one member of the Empanelment Committee participated in the deliberations.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court correctly interfered with the Tribunal's order in judicial review of the selection and empanelment process for appointment of the Director General of Police.

Analysis: Judicial review of administrative action is confined to illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Courts do not reassess comparative merit or substitute their view for that of an expert body unless the decision is shown to be vitiated by bias, mala fides or breach of law. The Tribunal had expanded the scope of review and interfered with an expert selection process without legal justification.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal's interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the Draft Guidelines and the identification of core policing areas were contrary to the directions in Prakash Singh and rendered the panel illegal or irrational.

Analysis: The directions in Prakash Singh required empanelment on the basis of seniority, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force. The Draft Guidelines were framed to implement those directions and provided an objective method of assessment. The selection of five core policing areas for evaluating range of experience was within the discretion of the Empanelment Committee and was adopted having regard to the special requirements of the State. No irrelevant consideration or arbitrariness was shown, and reasons were not legally required to be separately recorded by the Committee.

Conclusion: The Draft Guidelines and the panel prepared under them were valid and not contrary to Prakash Singh.

Issue (iii): Whether the selection process was vitiated by bias because one member of the Empanelment Committee participated in the deliberations.

Analysis: The allegation of bias was raised belatedly after participation in the process without protest. The relevant factual position was well known, the member's presence was part of the notified procedure, and the appellants had taken a chance in the selection process. In such circumstances, the plea was barred by waiver and acquiescence. The material did not establish a reasonable likelihood of bias sufficient to invalidate the panel.

Conclusion: The plea of bias was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The selection and appointment of the fourth respondent as Director General of Police was upheld, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review cannot unsettle an expert selection process unless the decision is shown to be illegal, irrational, procedurally improper, or tainted by bias, and a participant who takes a chance without protest cannot later challenge the process after an unfavourable result.

---