Back
Questions Odisha Government Over CBI Request Timing in DGP Selection
The on Wednesday pressed the Odisha government on whether it was aware of a request to question senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath when it forwarded his name for appointment as Director General of Police. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana sought clarity on the sequence of events, as allegations of "" between the state and the Centre emerged. The hearing, part of a petition challenging Nath’s exclusion from the DGP panel, also touched on broader concerns about adherence to the landmark Prakash Singh judgment on police reforms.
Background: The Prakash Singh Framework
The ’s judgment in laid down binding guidelines to insulate police appointments from political interference. It mandated that state governments must send a panel of eligible officers to the , which then recommends a shortlist for the DGP post. The selection must be based on merit, seniority, and integrity, with a minimum of two years to ensure stability. Any deviation from this process has been consistently struck down by the apex court. The current case tests whether the Odisha government’s actions—particularly the withdrawal of an for Nath—comply with these principles.
Court’s Queries on CBI Probe Timing
During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi posed a pointed question: “We are not saying the should be withdrawn. We are not clear on that. But what we are asking is: if the has already been registered, it refers to a certain role and names the person as an accused, then is it not the duty of the state government to place this before the Commission?” Drawing an analogy to a police officer accused in an over pellet gun use, the judge asked, “Should the UPSC be kept in the dark about this ?”
The bench sought to establish whether the state knew of the CBI’s request to examine Nath before or after forwarding his name. “If the State of Odisha was already in possession of the fact that such a request is made, and thereafter has forwarded your name, it is one thing. State of Odisha forwarded your name and thereafter the same period requested, it is again another. We want to know that,” Justice Bagchi said. The hearing was adjourned to Thursday, with the state’s Advocate General expected to respond.
Allegations of
Senior Advocate , representing a petitioner challenging the selection process, alleged “” between the Odisha government and the Centre. He argued that Nath’s was withdrawn merely on the basis of a CBI communication stating that he “may be required to be examined.” Chidambaram also pointed out that temporary were created to facilitate the promotion of other officers, effectively pushing Level 15 officers into Level 16 and expanding the beyond the eligible candidates.
Senior Advocate , appearing for a retired police officer, echoed this criticism, stating, “Apart from being in violation of the rules, you are trying to justify appointing somebody other than the two people who are eligible to be considered.” Advocate warned that permitting such procedural workarounds would “make mincemeat” of the Prakash Singh judgment.
Amicus Criticizes
Amicus Curiae told the court that the entire exercise “reeks of to artificially bring people within the zone.” He emphasized that the object of the Prakash Singh judgment was to prevent in DGP appointments. The hearing saw a sharp exchange when the Odisha Advocate General remarked that Ramachandran was arguing like counsel for the petitioner. Ramachandran strongly objected, saying that in 50 years of practice he had never been accused of being partisan. Chief Justice Kant intervened, noting, “Sometimes these comments are made so that this Court is deprived of assistance (of the Amicus).”
Nath’s Defense: Outstanding Record
Senior Advocate , appearing for Nath, informed the court that the CBI case was registered on , and that Nath was not named as an accused. She stated that the Odisha government knew of the case when it forwarded his name in . Nundy explained that the CBI merely sought to question Nath in his capacity as ex-officio chairman of the . “Admittedly, my record is outstanding. Nothing has been said about that. There has been no complaint whatsoever against me, not even a whisper. However, as soon as my name is put forward, because I fulfil all the requirements, including my , for the highest post, for the DGP, I am already a DGP, for the next, from Level 16 to Level 17, all this begins to nullify my honour, my integrity and my 32 years of service to this country and to the State,” Nundy submitted.
Jharkhand DGP Appointment Also Scrutinized
The bench briefly examined the appointment of Jharkhand’s first woman DGP, Tadasha Mishra, who was appointed on , a day before her retirement. Amicus Ramachandran questioned the rule used to overcome the six-month requirement, arguing, “You cannot artificially create a period of six months from one day.” Senior Advocate , appearing for Jharkhand, defended the state’s rules, saying some leeway was necessary for a small state with few DGP-level officers.
The court also questioned the role of the UPSC in Jharkhand’s selection mechanism, noting that under state rules, “nothing was going to UPSC.” The bench wondered whether doing away with the dominance of the UPSC would conflict with the Prakash Singh judgment. Ramachandran submitted that it would not necessarily violate the judgment so long as the selection body had UPSC representation.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This case underscores the ongoing tension between state autonomy and the for transparent police appointments. If the finds that the Odisha government acted with knowledge of the CBI request, it could set a precedent requiring states to disclose all pending investigations before forwarding names for top police posts. The allegations of collusion and manipulation of eligibility criteria also raise questions about the efficacy of the Prakash Singh guidelines in preventing political interference. The creation of temporary posts to alter the could be struck down as arbitrary, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to seniority and merit.
For legal professionals, the case highlights the importance of in administrative appointments. The court’s emphasis on the duty to inform screening bodies about ongoing probes will likely influence future DGP selection processes across states. Additionally, the scrutiny of Jharkhand’s appointment mechanism signals that the apex court is prepared to examine state-specific rules that deviate from the Prakash Singh framework.
Conclusion
The ’s hearing has exposed serious questions about the integrity of the DGP selection process in Odisha and beyond. With the state government yet to respond on the critical issue of timing, the matter will resume on Thursday. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for police leadership appointments, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as the guardian of institutional autonomy and . The legal community awaits the court’s eventual decision, which may clarify the boundaries of state discretion under the Prakash Singh judgment.
