Proposal Submitted In Supreme Court To Have DGPs Selected By Panel Of CM, Opposition Leader & HC CJ

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of contempt petitions for effective implementation of the directions given in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 1

In the said case, the Top Court had directed the state Governments to set up Police Complaints Authorities (PAC), with some independent members overseeing the functioning of the authority, till the framing of appropriate legislation.

These suggestions, however, either have not been implemented by the state governments or the state legislations pertaining to them are under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Amongst the batch, a contempt petition is also filed by Babulal Marandi, the leader of the opposition in the Jharkhand State Assembly as well as Akhil Bharatiya Adimjanjati Bikas Samitee Jharkhand. 

Appointment of DGPs Either Biased Or Based On 'Ad Hoc' Performance: Petitioners Raise Concerns

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, for Marandi submitted that the State of Jharkhand has been partial in appointing DGPs in the state. She stressed : 

"The same favourite person is being appointed again and again, even though EC had removed this person purportedly because of some misgivings."

Sr Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners also added that the violation of Prakash Singh's directions has occurred in 8 States so far, including Jharkhand. He emphasised that the Court has in the past frowned upon the idea of having ad hoc DGPs. He said, "What happens the minute you have an acting DGP, it's like having a character at stake- as long as you are a good boy, I (state) will ensure that you cut it (get confirmed)- this the Court has frowned upon." 

Appointment Procedure Requires A Revamp, Should Be Similar To What Is Followed For Selecting CBI Director : Application Filed By Prakash Singh 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the original petitioner Prakash Singh submitted that the earlier procedure, as per the directions in Prakash Singh, was that the UPSC panel would suggest three names for the post of DGP and then the State Government would select one. 

He added that now the State Governments would not send any information for the UPSC to enable a panel recommendation and instead appoint ad-hoc DGPs. Bhushand submitted that an application is now filed on behalf of Singh seeking directions to the State Governments to have a selection procedure similar to what is followed in the selection of the director in the CBI at the centre. 

He explained that just as the appointment of CBI director is done by the committee including the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the CJI, the same pattern can be followed for DGP appointments at the state level. Here it is proposed that the 3-member committee consist of the Chief Minister of the state, the Leader of Opposition of the State Assembly and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

SG Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, agreed that several states were not complying with the directions and informed the bench that he would take instructions on this aspect by the next hearing. 

Issuing notice in the fresh contempt petitions, the bench has listed the matter for August 18. 

Case Details : PRAKASH SINGH AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 310/1996 and connected matters.