New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether the Odisha government was aware of the request from CBI to examine senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath before recommending him to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the panel for appointment as the state’s Director General of Police.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana pressed for clarity on the exact sequence of events surrounding Nath’s inclusion and subsequent exclusion from the panel of officers shortlisted for the top police post.
The state government had previously issued an integrity certificate for Nath but later withdrew it following the CBI’s communication regarding an ongoing probe into the sub-inspector (SI) recruitment scam, prompting the submission of a revised list of candidates to the UPSC.
During the proceedings, the bench focused heavily on the state’s duty to inform screening bodies about ongoing investigations. “We are not saying the integrity certificate should be withdrawn. We are not clear on that. But what we are asking is: if the FIR 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?” Bar and Bench reported, quoting Justice Bagchi.
Drawing an analogy to a police officer named in an FIR over the use of pellet guns against protesters, Justice Bagchi questioned, “Should the UPSC be kept in the dark about this FIR?”
The apex court stressed the importance of establishing whether the state government had prior knowledge of the investigative agency’s intention to question the officer. “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 noted.
Appearing for Nath, Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy informed the court that the CBI case was registered on November 12, 2025, and clarified that Nath was not named as an accused in the matter. She stated that the Odisha government was fully aware of the pending investigation when it originally recommended his name in May 2026. Nundy emphasised that the CBI merely sought to question Nath in his capacity as the ex-officio chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board (OPRB), maintaining that there were no allegations against him.
Representing her client’s record, Nundy argued, “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 integrity certificate, 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.”
The court also heard sharp criticisms regarding the broader procedural manoeuvres undertaken by the state administration.
Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, representing a petitioner challenging the selection process, alleged “premeditated collusion” between the state government and the central authorities. “There was a premeditated collusion between the Odisha government and the Centre. Nath’s integrity certificate was withdrawn merely on the basis of a CBI communication saying he ‘may be required to be examined’,” Chidambaram told the bench, adding that temporary ex-cadre posts were subsequently created to clear the path for other officers by facilitating their promotion.
Echoing these concerns, Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that allowing such procedural workarounds would “make mincemeat” of the landmark Prakash Singh judgment, which laid down guidelines to prevent political interference in police appointments.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for a retired police officer, similarly argued that Level 15 officers were artificially elevated to Level 16 by creating temporary posts to expand the zone of consideration, 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.”
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran told the court that the state’s actions “reek of arbitrariness to artificially bring people within the zone,” reiterating that the primary purpose of the Prakash Singh framework is to insulate police chief selections from political favouritism.
The hearing briefly turned tense after the Advocate General for Odisha remarked that the amicus was arguing like a counsel for the petitioner. Ramachandran strongly objected to the comment, pointing out that in his 50 years of legal practice, he had never been accused of being partisan.
Intervening to restore order, CJI Kant remarked, “Sometimes these comments are made so that this Court is deprived of assistance (of the Amicus).”
The Supreme Court is set to resume hearing the matter on Thursday, where the Advocate General for Odisha is expected to formally present the state government’s response to the queries raised by the bench, the report added.
