A day after the Aam Aadmi Party government in Punjab passed a legislation to independently appoint the State’s Director General of Police (DGP) without the Central government’s nod, former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh — who was the petitioner in a landmark police reforms case — said that the legislation was in consonance with the Supreme Court’s 2006 judgement in that case.
“The [2006] SC order is very clear that the directions will hold good till such time the Centre or States enact legislation on the subject. In other words, once the legislation is enacted, these directions will not apply,” Mr. Singh told The Hindu.
On Tuesday, the Punjab Assembly passed a Bill to amend the Punjab Police Act 2007, in order to bring about an independent mechanism for the selection and appointment of suitable persons to the post of the DGP or Head of Police Force, “free from political or executive interference.”
In 2019, the Supreme Court had rejected petitions filed by Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana, and Bihar to allow them to select DGPs based on similar laws passed in their respective State Assemblies. These laws have been kept in abeyance by the SC.
Circumventing Centre
The current police chief of Punjab, Gaurav Yadav, has been appointed as DGP with additional charge. At least three others States — Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana — have appointed “acting DGPs” or DGPs with “full additional charge” in the recent past, circumventing the necessary clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), as directed by the top court.
BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh has not had a full-time DGP since 2022. On June 1, the U.P government appointed 1988-batch IPS officer Vijaya Kumar as officiating DGP, for the third time in a row. In Telangana, 1990-batch IPS officer Anjani Kumar was appointed DGP with “full additional charge” on December 29, 2022. Similarly, in February 2022, the Andhra Pradesh government appointed K.V. Rajendranath Reddy, a 1992-batch IPS officer, as DGP with full additional charge.
The 2006 SC order stated that the DGP should be selected from among the three senior-most IPS officers with a minimum service record of 30 years, who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The officer should be provided a minimum tenure of at least two years, irrespective of the date of retirement from service.
Some States, to accommodate officers of their choice, either kept the posts vacant by appointing acting DGPs, or appointed officers on the verge of retirement, giving them two more years in office.
Home Ministry petition
The Home Ministry — the authority controlling the IPS officers’ cadre — moved a petition in the SC in 2017, seeking to modify the original order. It pleaded that the officer selected for the top police post should have at least two years of service left when he or she was appointed. The SC then said that all proposals for appointment of DGPs should be sent to the UPSC that would then shortlist the names.
The Home Ministry has not framed any separate legislation for the appointments. Home Ministry officials did not comment on whether they would initiate any step regarding the Punjab legislation.
‘No contempt of court’
However, the police reforms petitioner said he would not challenge it. “They [Punjab] have passed an amendment Act, saying there will be a committee at the State level, three names will be submitted to the government and the Chief Minister will select one of them. This procedure that they have recommended is on the same lines as that recommended by the SC. It conforms to SC directions, there is no contempt of court involved in this. If the legislation is reasonable, I am not going to challenge it,” Mr. Singh said.
According to the Punjab amendment, the selection would be done by a seven member empanelment committee, which would be chaired by a retired Chief Justice or a retired judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and would include a nominee each from the UPSC and the Union Home Ministry. The DGP will have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of superannuation.
State subjects
Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann said that ‘public order’ and ‘police’ are subjects that appear in the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, and are thus matters falling within the “exclusive domain of the States”.
Hemant Kumar, an advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, said that the Bill now faced two hurdles: assent from the Governor and judicial review by the Supreme Court. In January 2019, the SC deprecated a similar legislation, passed in 2018 by the then-Punjab government headed by Amarinder Singh, which had completely ousted the UPSC from any role in the selection process, Mr. Kumar said.
