SC FLAGS AD-HOC DGP APPOINTMENTS BY STATES

Why in the News?

• Court Observation: Supreme Court flagged States’ growing preference for appointing “Acting” DGPs instead of regular police chiefs.
• UPSC Direction: The Court asked UPSC to approach it if States delay proposals for regular DGP appointments.
• Prakash Singh Case: The issue revives concerns over non-compliance with the landmark 2006 police reforms judgment.

WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT SAY

• Ad-hoc Preference: The Court observed that States are deliberately opting for acting DGPs of their choice, bypassing regular appointments to retain administrative control.
• Violation Highlighted: Such ad-hoc arrangements were held to be in clear violation of the Prakash Singh judgment, which explicitly rejected the concept of Acting DGPs.
• Tenure Undermined: The practice defeats the purpose of ensuring a minimum fixed tenure of two years, meant to insulate police leadership from political pressure.
• Merit Ignored: The Bench noted that senior and meritorious IPS officers are losing their chance to become DGPs due to deliberate procedural delays.
• Judicial Concern: The Court warned that continued non-compliance reflects systemic disregard for binding constitutional directions issued under Article 142.

ROLE OF UPSC AND COURT’S DIRECTIONS

• Selection Process: The Court reiterated that States must choose DGPs only from among the three senior-most officers empanelled by UPSC.
• Timely Proposal: States are required to send proposals to UPSC at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP.
• UPSC Responsibility: The Commission was cautioned not to fall into State-level ploys and to actively seek timely proposals.
• Right to Approach Court: UPSC has been given liberty to approach the Supreme Court directly if States ignore its communications.
• Accountability Warning: The Court said that continued delays would invite accountability and adverse consequences for officials responsible.