1. Clarification of directions regarding selection and minimum tenure of Director General of Police — conflict between state police enactments and judicial guidelines. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. – PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 310 OF 1996 WITH I.A.NO. 115064/2018, I.A.NO. 20735/2019, I.A.NO.11484/2019
Decided On : 13-03-2019
Advocates:
For Respondent(s)/ Applicant(s): Pinky Anand, ASG UoI Saudamini Sharma, Sumit Teterwal, Hemant Arya, Kirti Dua, C. Papta, Snidha Mehra, Tanisha Samanta, B.V. Balaram Das,
for UPSC : Naresh Kaushik, Vardhman Kaushik, B. Purushothama Reddy, Manoj Joshi, Omung Raj Gupta, Devik Singh, Rahul Sharma, Rebbeca Dais, Siddhant Manral, Lalitha Kaushik,
State of Chhattisgarh : Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandrajog, Ashish Tiwari, Surya Kamal Mishra, Adv.
State of U.P. : Swarupama Chaturvedi,
State of H.P. : Abhinav Mukerji, Bihu Sharma, Purnima Krishna, Pratishtha Vij, Rachana Srivastava, Umme Salma, Adv.
State of Karnataka : V.N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Md. Apzal Ansari, Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
State of Gujarat : Hemantika Wahi, Puja Singh, Adv.
State of Meghalaya : Ranjan Mukherjee, Upendra Mishra, K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.
State of Jharkhand : Jayesh Gaurav, Gopal Prasad,
State of Mizoram : Siddhesh Kotwal, Bansuri Swaraj, Raghunatha Sethupathy, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashtan Tyagi, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates,
State of T.N. : Balaji Srinivasan, AAG, T.N. M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathi,
State of Haryana : Anil Grover, AAG, Haryana Satish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Visen,
State of Assam : Shuvodeep Roy, Rijuk Sarkar, Adv.
State of Tripura : Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Rijuk Sarkar,
State of Bihar : Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Shivam Singh, Aditya Raina, Kumar Milind, Udian Sharma, Shreyas Jain, Adv.
State of J&K : M. Shoeb Alam, Ujjwal Singh, Gautam Prabhakar, Mojahid Karim Khan,
State of West Bengal : Suhaan Mukerji, Astha Sharma, Amit Verma, Abhishek Manchanda, Dimple Nagpal, M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Prasanth P.,
State of Kerala : G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, Adv.
State of Punjab : Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, Kaveeta Wadia, P.V. Dinesh, Anil Katiyar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, P. Parmeswaran, M/s. S. Narain & Co., Kamlendra Mishra, P.V. Yogeswaran, T.V. George, Rajesh Srivastava, Sumita Hazarika, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ashok Mathur, B. Balaji, Tara Chandra Sharma, Anip Sachthey, Anuvrat Sharma, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Anitha Shenoy, Aniruddha P. Mayee, C.K. Sasi, T. Harish Kumar, R. Ayyam Perumal, Anil Shrivastav, Merusagar Samantaray, Abhishek, Abha R. Sharma
For Respondent(s)/ Applicant(s): Pinky Anand, ASG UoI Saudamini Sharma, Sumit Teterwal, Hemant Arya, Kirti Dua, C. Papta, Snidha Mehra, Tanisha Samanta, B.V. Balaram Das,
for UPSC : Naresh Kaushik, Vardhman Kaushik, B. Purushothama Reddy, Manoj Joshi, Omung Raj Gupta, Devik Singh, Rahul Sharma, Rebbeca Dais, Siddhant Manral, Lalitha Kaushik,
State of Chhattisgarh : Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandrajog, Ashish Tiwari, Surya Kamal Mishra, Adv.
State of U.P. : Swarupama Chaturvedi,
State of H.P. : Abhinav Mukerji, Bihu Sharma, Purnima Krishna, Pratishtha Vij, Rachana Srivastava, Umme Salma, Adv.
State of Karnataka : V.N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Md. Apzal Ansari, Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
State of Gujarat : Hemantika Wahi, Puja Singh, Adv.
State of Meghalaya : Ranjan Mukherjee, Upendra Mishra, K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.
State of Jharkhand : Jayesh Gaurav, Gopal Prasad,
State of Mizoram : Siddhesh Kotwal, Bansuri Swaraj, Raghunatha Sethupathy, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashtan Tyagi, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates,
State of T.N. : Balaji Srinivasan, AAG, T.N. M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathi,
State of Haryana : Anil Grover, AAG, Haryana Satish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Visen,
State of Assam : Shuvodeep Roy, Rijuk Sarkar, Adv.
State of Tripura : Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Rijuk Sarkar,
State of Bihar : Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Shivam Singh, Aditya Raina, Kumar Milind, Udian Sharma, Shreyas Jain, Adv.
State of J&K : M. Shoeb Alam, Ujjwal Singh, Gautam Prabhakar, Mojahid Karim Khan,
State of West Bengal : Suhaan Mukerji, Astha Sharma, Amit Verma, Abhishek Manchanda, Dimple Nagpal, M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Prasanth P.,
State of Kerala : G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, Adv.
State of Punjab : Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, Kaveeta Wadia, P.V. Dinesh, Anil Katiyar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, P. Parmeswaran, M/s. S. Narain & Co., Kamlendra Mishra, P.V. Yogeswaran, T.V. George, Rajesh Srivastava, Sumita Hazarika, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ashok Mathur, B. Balaji, Tara Chandra Sharma, Anip Sachthey, Anuvrat Sharma, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Anitha Shenoy, Aniruddha P. Mayee, C.K. Sasi, T. Harish Kumar, R. Ayyam Perumal, Anil Shrivastav, Merusagar Samantaray, Abhishek, Abha R. Sharma
IMPORTANT POINT
Recommendation for appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the Union Public Service Commission and preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement.
Headnote:Service law – Appointment of DGP – Directions given in Prakash Singh to appoint DGP strictly on merits and for a minimum tenure of two years irrespective of his date of superannuation – States, instead, appointing DGP on the eve of his retirement or having minimum residual tenure of two years from out of a panel recommended by UPSC – Court emphasized selection of the best and ensuring a minimum tenure of two years – Held, there should be a fixed reasonable residual tenure of six months – Order of the Court dated 3 rd July, 2018 passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.310 of 1996 clarified to mean that recommendation for appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the Union Public Service Commission and preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement. (Para 8, 10)
(2006) 8 SCC 1 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 was filed challenging enactments of State Police Acts and amendments thereto on the ground that they are not in tune or rather negate the directions in Prakash Singh as regards appointment of DGP.
The present application (I.A. No.24616 of 2019) has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for adequate clarification of the directions contained in the order dated 3rd July, 2018, (passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.310 of 1996).
Finding of the Court:
Order of the Court dated 3 rd July, 2018 passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.310 of 1996 clarified.
Result: All IAs disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the Union Public Service Commission should require a minimum residual tenure of two years for empanelling officers for the post of Director General of Police. (Para 5 )
3. Minimum tenure applies after appointment to ensure stability and merit, not as a prerequisite for empanelment or a means to extend service beyond superannuation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. To ensure merit-based appointment and prevent favoritism, the minimum residual tenure for an officer to be recommended for the post of Director General of Police is six months. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Clarified that the Union Public Service Commission shall prepare the panel for Director General of Police based on merit from officers with minimum residual tenure of six months. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. What is the purpose of providing a minimum tenure for the Director General of Police?
The purpose is to ensure that the appointment is based purely on merit and to insulate the office from all kinds of external influences and pressures once the incumbent is appointed. (Para 7 )
7. Does the minimum tenure requirement for the Director General of Police apply to the empanelment process?
No, the minimum tenure of two years is intended for the incumbent after they have been appointed and does not require officers to have a minimum residual tenure of two years for empanelment. (Para 6 )
8. What is the minimum residual tenure required for an officer to be recommended for the post of Director General of Police?
The minimum residual tenure, defined as the remaining period of service until normal retirement, is fixed at six months to prevent favoritism and ensure efficient and eligible officers are not overlooked. (Para 8 , 10 )
JUDGMENT
I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019
1. On an earlier occasion, this Court had the occasion to deal with another application for clarification of this Court’s order dated 3rd July, 2018 [i.e. I.A. No.144172 of 2018] though in a different context. While passing the order on the said I.A. on 16.1.2019, this Court referring to the principles underlying the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 1 had specifically noticed the relevant directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which are in the following terms:
“Selection and minimum tenure of DGP.
(2) The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force. And, once he has been selected for the job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. The DGP may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upon any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his duties.”
2. Thereafter this Court took note of the fact that different States have enacted their respective Police Acts and/or have carried out further amendments in their respective Police Acts. However, all such amendments did not wholly follow the dictum laid down by this court in Prakash Singh (supra). This had led to filing of writ petition (i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 challenging the validity of the provisions of Police Acts enacted by different States.
3. Primary ground of challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 is that the enactments are not in tune or rather negate the directions of this Court in Prakash Singh (supra).
4. The present application (I.A. No.24616 of 2019) has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for adequate clarification of the directions contained in the order dated 3rd July, 2018, (passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.310 of 1996) which are extracted below. Specifically, the directions in clauses (e) and (f) have been argued to be necessary to be clarified by this Court.
“(a) All the States shall send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission, well in time at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent on the post of Director General of Police;
(b) The Union Public Service Commission shall prepare the panel as per the directions of this Court in the judgment in Prakash Singh’s case(supra) and intimate to the States;
(c) The State shall immediately appoint one of the persons from the panel prepared by the Union Public Service Commission;
(d) None of the States shall ever conceive of the idea of appointing any person on the post of Director General of Police on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police as per the decision in Prakash Singh’s case(supra);
(e) An endeavour has to be made by all concerned to see that the person who was selected and appointed as the Director General of Police continues despite his date of superannuation. However, the extended term beyond the date of superannuation should be a reasonable period. We say so as it has been brought to our notice that some of the States have adopted a practice to appoint the Director General of Police on the last date of retirement as a consequence of which the person continues for two years after his date of superannuation. Such a practice will not be in conformity with the spirit of the direction.
(f) Our direction No.(c) shou
