Supreme Court: Questions Odisha DGP Nath Exclusion Over Integrity Certificate

• The Supreme Court is scrutinizing Odisha's exclusion of Susanta Kumar Nath, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service, from DGP consideration.
• Odisha withheld Nath's integrity certificate due to a CBI investigation into recruitment irregularities, despite him not being named as an accused in the FIR.
• The court questioned if merely being liable for examination in an investigation justifies withholding an integrity certificate.
• The case also alleges Odisha breached Prakash Singh guidelines by modifying its DGP panel to potentially include a junior officer.
• The Supreme Court had previously directed the UPSC not to finalize the selection and warned that non-compliant appointments would be set aside.

The Supreme Court has directly questioned the Odisha government's decision to withhold the integrity certificate of Susanta Kumar Nath, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service, a move that effectively excluded him from consideration for the Director General of Police position.

The Supreme Court has directly questioned the Odisha government's decision to withhold the integrity certificate of Susanta Kumar Nath, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service, a move that effectively excluded him from consideration for the Director General of Police position. This judicial inquiry forms part of a broader challenge to the state's DGP selection process, which petitioners allege violates established guidelines for such high-profile appointments.

The court's bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, raised significant concerns regarding the basis for Nath's exclusion. The integrity certificate was withheld following developments in a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities concerning the Odisha Sub-Inspector recruitment examination. Crucially, the CBI had registered an FIR on November 12, 2025, but Susanta Kumar Nath was not named as an accused in that FIR.

Despite the ongoing CBI proceedings, Odisha had forwarded Nath's name to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in May 2026 for consideration for the DGP post. The Supreme Court specifically questioned whether the state was aware of the CBI investigation when it submitted Nath's name and, if so, why this pertinent information was not presented to the Commission. Furthermore, the bench critically asked whether merely being subject to examination in an investigation could justify withholding an integrity certificate, especially when the individual is not formally accused.

The current legal dispute centers on allegations that the Odisha government breached the Supreme Court's Prakash Singh guidelines for DGP appointments. Petitioners contend that the state unlawfully modified its list of officers eligible for consideration after two Additional Director General (ADG)-rank officers were promoted to Director General (DG) rank. This alteration, it is argued, improperly enlarged the zone of consideration, contravening the directives set forth in the landmark Prakash Singh v. Union of India judgment.

Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram, who brought the matter before the court, highlighted that the UPSC was initially scheduled to meet on August 7 to finalize a panel of three eligible candidates for the Odisha appointment. However, the state subsequently withdrew its original list of officers. Chidambaram informed the court that the state was attempting to promote an ADGP to DG rank, effectively trying to introduce a junior officer into the revised list of probable candidates for the Director General of Police role, thereby circumventing the established selection process.

This move comes as the incumbent DGP, YB Khurania, is slated to demit office on August 15 of the current year, adding urgency to the selection process. The Supreme Court had previously agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Odisha government's decision, citing a breach of the apex court's directions issued in the 2006 Prakash Singh case, which mandates a transparent and merit-based selection for state police chiefs.

The Supreme Court's rigorous questioning underscores its commitment to upholding the integrity of high-level police appointments, particularly concerning the Prakash Singh guidelines DGP appointments. Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, representing Susanta Kumar Nath, emphasized that there was no pending CBI request seeking permission to interrogate her client, nor had he been named as an accused in the CBI investigation into the Odisha recruitment irregularities. This argument directly challenges the state's justification for withholding his integrity certificate.

In August, the Supreme Court had already intervened, directing the UPSC not to convene its meeting to finalize the selection for the Director General of Police of Odisha. Chief Justice Surya Kant had assured Chidambaram that any violation of the court's directions would result in the appointment being set aside. The court also noted that the UPSC is duty-bound to approach the judiciary in cases of non-compliance with its directives regarding such appointments.

While the Advocate General for the state of Odisha questioned the motives behind the PIL, Justice Bagchi clarified that the court's concern lay solely with the adherence to legal procedures and not with the credentials of the petitioner's client. This stance reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that state governments strictly follow the prescribed legal framework for selecting top police officials, a principle the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as February 2026.

This case highlights the Supreme Court's strict enforcement of the Prakash Singh guidelines for DGP appointments, particularly regarding the integrity assessment of candidates. Lawyers advising state governments or public service commissions must ensure meticulous adherence to these guidelines and exercise extreme caution when withholding integrity certificates based on ongoing investigations where an officer is not formally accused, as this could lead to judicial intervention.

Source: Reporting based on recent Supreme Court proceedings.