Supreme Court: Odisha Questioned Over CBI Probe for Susanta Nath DGP

• The Supreme Court questioned the Odisha government about its awareness of a CBI request to question IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath when his name was proposed for DGP.
• Nath was excluded from the DGP selection process due to an ongoing CBI probe into a sub-inspector recruitment scam.
• The Court emphasized the state's duty to inform the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) about registered FIRs naming an accused candidate for high-level posts.
• Odisha has since withdrawn Nath's integrity certificate and is submitting a fresh list of IPS officers to the UPSC.
• The bench clarified it was not dictating the withdrawal of the certificate but stressing the importance of full disclosure to the selection commission.

If an FIR has been registered and names an individual as an accused, it is incumbent upon the State Government to present this information to the Commission.

The Supreme Court recently directed pointed questions at the Odisha government concerning its process for selecting the Director General of Police (DGP). A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, specifically inquired whether the state was cognizant of a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) request to interrogate senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath at the time his name was put forward for the top police post. This judicial intervention occurred during the hearing of a petition challenging Nath's removal from consideration for the DGP role.

Nath's exclusion from the selection process stems from an active CBI investigation into his alleged involvement in a sub-inspector (SI) recruitment scam. The Court's line of questioning underscored a critical concern regarding the transparency and due diligence exercised by state authorities in high-profile appointments. The bench sought to understand the extent of the Odisha government's knowledge regarding the ongoing CBI probe when it initially included Nath in the panel of officers for the DGP position.

During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi emphasized the state's obligation to disclose pertinent information to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the body responsible for shortlisting candidates for such roles. He questioned whether the Odisha government should have proactively informed the CBI about the pending CBI probe, though the subsequent clarification pointed towards the duty to inform the UPSC. The judge explicitly asked whether, in cases where a First Information Report (FIR) has been registered and names an individual as an accused, it is not incumbent upon the State Government to present this information to the Commission.

The Odisha government has since taken action, withdrawing the integrity certificate previously issued for Susanta Kumar Nath for his consideration as DGP. Consequently, the state is now in the process of submitting a revised list of IPS officers to the UPSC as part of the ongoing DGP appointment procedure. Justice Bagchi, however, clarified that the Court was not necessarily advocating for the withdrawal of the integrity certificate itself, but rather focusing on the principle of full disclosure to the UPSC. He illustrated this point by posing a hypothetical scenario: if a police officer is accused in an FIR concerning the use of pellet guns against protestors, should the UPSC remain uninformed about such a significant legal matter?

This Supreme Court intervention highlights a crucial aspect of governance: the imperative for state governments to maintain utmost transparency and integrity when nominating candidates for sensitive and high-ranking public offices, particularly those involving law enforcement. The questions posed by the bench suggest a heightened judicial expectation for states to conduct thorough due diligence and to openly communicate any ongoing investigations or legal challenges pertaining to potential appointees to the UPSC.

The case involving Susanta Kumar Nath and the Odisha DGP appointment process could set a precedent for how integrity certificates are handled and how information about ongoing investigations, such as a CBI probe into a sub-inspector recruitment scam, is shared with selection bodies. It reinforces the principle that bodies like the UPSC should not be kept "in the dark" about serious allegations or active legal proceedings against candidates, ensuring that selections for critical roles are made with complete and accurate information. This scrutiny underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding the integrity of public service appointments across the nation.

Lawyers advising state governments or public bodies should note the Supreme Court's scrutiny on transparency regarding integrity certificates and the duty to disclose ongoing investigations against candidates for high-level appointments like DGP, potentially influencing future appointment processes and due diligence requirements.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets.