Odisha High Court: Odisha Govt's DGP Appointment Breach Prakash Singh Guidelines

• The Odisha government's decision to appoint a DGP is alleged to breach the Prakash Singh guidelines.
• The UPSC was scheduled to meet on August 7 to consider a panel of three eligible candidates for the Odisha appointment, but the state withdrew the list of officers.
• The PIL claims that the state is trying to include a junior officer in the list of probable candidates for the DGP post.
• The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the PIL and will likely scrutinize the state government's decision-making process.

The State of Odisha is breaching the Prakash Singh judgment. On August 7, the UPSC was scheduled to meet to select from among the three DGPs. Odisha withdrew the list. They are now making another list to send.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) against the Odisha government's decision to appoint the Director General of Police (DGP), alleging breach of the apex court's directions in the 2006 Prakash Singh case. The PIL, filed by Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, claims that the state government is trying to include a junior officer in the list of probable candidates for the DGP post. This move allegedly violates the guidelines set out in the Prakash Singh judgment, which aimed to insulate the police force from political interference and ensure greater professionalism in policing.

The UPSC was scheduled to meet on August 7 to consider a panel of three eligible candidates for the Odisha appointment, but the state withdrew the list of officers. Chidambaram informed the court that the state is now making another list to send, which may include an ADGP who will be promoted either today or last night and then smuggled into the list.

The CJI noted that as per an earlier order, the UPSC is duty-bound to approach the court in case of non-compliance with the directions. The PIL highlights the need for the state government to adhere to the prescribed procedure for appointing DGPs, which includes preparing a panel of eligible officers and selecting the DGP from among those empanelled.

The Prakash Singh judgment, delivered in 2006, laid down key guidelines to ensure greater professionalism in policing. One of its significant directions concerned the appointment and tenure of the Director General of Police (DGP). The Court directed that the State Government must select the DGP from among the three senior-most eligible officers, who are empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) based on their length of service, very good service record, and experience in heading a police force. The selected DGP must be provided a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of superannuation.

In 2019, the Court clarified that the UPSC panel should comprise officers having at least six months of residual service before retirement. The PIL highlights the need for the state government to adhere to these guidelines and ensure that the DGP appointment process is transparent and fair. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated its commitment to upholding the Prakash Singh judgment and ensuring that states follow the prescribed procedure for appointing DGPs.

The UPSC's role in preparing a panel of eligible officers and selecting the DGP from among those empanelled is crucial in maintaining the autonomy of the police force. The Court has made it clear that the prescribed eligibility criteria cannot be bypassed merely because the number of eligible officers is limited.

The alleged breach of the Prakash Singh guidelines in the Odisha DGP appointment highlights the need for states to adhere to the prescribed procedure for appointing DGPs. The PIL emphasizes that the UPSC's role in preparing a panel of eligible officers and selecting the DGP from among those empanelled is crucial in maintaining the autonomy of the police force.

Lawyers and compliance officers should watch for potential non-compliance with the Prakash Singh guidelines, which may lead to scrutiny from the Supreme Court. They should ensure that their clients' DGP appointment processes adhere to these guidelines to avoid any potential exposure. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in the police force and highlights the need for states to prioritize the professionalism and autonomy of policing.

The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the police force and its relationship with the state government. It is essential that the Supreme Court upholds the Prakash Singh judgment and ensures that states follow the prescribed procedure for appointing DGPs, which will help maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the police force.

Lawyers and compliance officers should watch for potential non-compliance with the Prakash Singh guidelines, which may lead to scrutiny from the Supreme Court. They should ensure that their clients' DGP appointment processes adhere to these guidelines to avoid any potential exposure.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court Plea Alleges Breach Of Prakash Singh Guidelines In Odisha DGP Appointment