Delay in DGP appointments unacceptable: SC warns states, empowers UPSC to act
New Delhi, February 5: In a strong reaffirmation of police reform guidelines, the Supreme Court of India has cautioned State Governments…
New Delhi, February 5: In a strong reaffirmation of police reform guidelines, the Supreme Court of India has cautioned State Governments against delaying the appointment of regular Directors General of Police (DGPs), making it clear that continued inaction could invite contempt proceedings.
Disapproving of the growing practice of appointing acting or ad hoc DGPs, the Court has now authorised the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to issue formal reminders to States for timely submission of proposals. In case of persistent default, the UPSC has been granted liberty to move the Supreme Court for contempt in the Prakash Singh matter.
Court Reiterates Binding Nature of Police Reforms
The Court recalled its landmark 2006 directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, which mandate that a State’s DGP must be appointed from among the three senior-most empanelled officers cleared by the UPSC.
Further, as per the 2018 clarification, States are required to forward their proposals at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP, enabling the UPSC to prepare a panel in time. However, delays by States have resulted in the routine appointment of acting DGPs—an approach repeatedly frowned upon by the Court.
The UPSC informed the Bench that this practice deprives eligible and meritorious officers of a fair opportunity to be considered for the top police post.
ALSO READ: Security tightened in Jamshedpur after Interpol alert
UPSC’s Concerns Endorsed
Endorsing these objections, the Court observed:
“In order to ensure that there is no violation of the directions in the Prakash Singh case, we authorise the UPSC to write to State Governments to send timely proposals for appointment of regular DGPs. In the event of continued default, the UPSC is at liberty to move an appropriate application before this Court. Necessary consequences, including accountability of those responsible for the delay, shall follow.”
Bench Examines Telangana DGP Dispute
The ruling came while a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by the UPSC challenging a direction of the Telangana High Court, which had ordered completion of the DGP selection process within four weeks.
At the outset, the Chief Justice pointed out that accepting the UPSC’s challenge could leave Telangana without a serving DGP, questioning why the Commission had not anticipated this consequence.
Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik, appearing for the UPSC, responded that the State had failed to comply with the mandatory three-month timeline laid down in Prakash Singh. When asked why contempt proceedings had not been initiated earlier, Kaushik sought time to comply and requested clarity on UPSC’s power to approach the Court in future cases of non-compliance.
“Please do not be trapped by the States. They do not want a regular DGP; they want an acting or ad hoc DGP because that suits them,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Court Grants Time but Issues Warning
While granting the UPSC four additional weeks to complete the selection process, the Court noted that although the Commission’s objections were valid, they had inadvertently aggravated delays, indirectly enabling ad hoc appointments—contrary to the spirit of police reforms.
The Court directed the UPSC to convene the Empanelment Committee Meeting (ECM) at the earliest and proceed with recommendations for the appointment of a regular DGP in Telangana, while independently determining the eligibility of officers under consideration.
Broader Signal to States
The Bench also took note of the UPSC’s submission that Telangana was not an isolated case and that several States were routinely bypassing the mandated process.
To curb this trend, the Court formally empowered the UPSC to:
- Issue reminders to States for timely DGP proposals; and
- Initiate contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court in case of continued non-compliance.
The Court stressed that accountability of erring officials will be fixed where delays are found to be deliberate or unjustified.
