SC flags States’ preference for ‘ad-hoc’ DGP appointments, Pg14

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court criticized states for favoring "Acting" DGPs over regular appointments, violating the Prakash Singh case judgment of 2006.
• The 2006 judgment mandated a fixed two-year tenure for DGPs, selected from a panel of senior officers empanelled by the UPSC.
• The UPSC informed the court that states often delay or avoid sending proposals for regular DGP appointments.
• The court directed the UPSC to communicate with states for timely proposals and warned of consequences for delays.

Detailed Insights:

• The Prakash Singh case aimed to insulate the DGP's office from political influence, ensuring a fixed tenure and merit-based selection.
• Article 142 of the Constitution was invoked in the 2006 judgment, granting the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to enforce its directives.
• Subsequent orders in 2018 and 2019 detailed the appointment mechanism, requiring states to send proposals to the UPSC three months before a DGP's retirement.
• States' preference for "Acting" DGPs deprives meritorious officers of the opportunity to lead, undermining the intended reforms.
• The Supreme Court has empowered the UPSC to directly approach the court if states fail to comply with the directives for regular DGP appointments.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Director-General of Police (DGP): The highest-ranking police officer in a state or union territory.
• Article 142: Grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to pass orders necessary for justice.
• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC): The central recruiting agency responsible for appointments to various civil services and posts.