New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday deferred the hearing of a plea challenging the Odisha government’s process for appointing the next Director General of Police (DGP) to September 16.
A three-judge bench of the Apex Court comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter and adjourned the proceedings.
Meanwhile, senior IPS officer Susanta Nath, whose name figured in an earlier list of proposed candidates for the DGP’s post, has reportedly filed an application before the Supreme Court in connection with the case.
Joining the SC proceedings as an intervenor, the Jail DG says he is an affected party. The focus is now on Nath’s plea in Apex Court. He has sought to be heard in the case on the ground that he is an affected party and that the outcome of the proceedings could have bearing on his position in the Odisha DGP selection process.
Earlier, the Amicus Curiae appointed to assist the Supreme Court had submitted his report in the case.
The SC had on September 2 deferred hearing of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the procedure adopted by the Odisha government for selecting the state’s next police chief.
The petitioners alleged that the Odisha government was trying to include junior officers in the list of probable candidates for the DGP post in breach of the apex court’s directions in the 2006 Prakash Singh case.
It is pertinent to mention that the dispute is rooted in the Supreme Court’s landmark Prakash Singh police-reforms judgment. Under the Court’s directions, the state DGP is to be selected from a panel prepared by the UPSC, with consideration given to factors including service record, experience and merit.
During previous hearing on August 18, the Supreme Court recorded that the State of Odisha had filed its counter affidavit, while the UPSC had also filed its counter affidavit concerning Odisha’s proposal.
The matter assumes significance following the retirement of former Odisha DGP YB Khurania on August 16. Senior IPS officer Binaytosh Mishra is currently serving as the in-charge/interim DGP of the state.
The Supreme Court has also directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) not to finalise the panel of probable candidates for the DGP’s post until the court examines the challenge to the appointment process.
During an earlier hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, informed the court that Odisha had already filed its response. The state has maintained that promotion of senior IPS officers is part of normal administrative process and it is entitled to send a fresh proposal to the UPSC comprising officers who fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, representing the petitioner before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, had argued that Odisha initially sent names of three DG-rank officers – Sudhanshu Sarangi, R P Koche, and Susanta Kumar Nath. The pool was then expanded to 11 officers by adding eight Additional Director General (ADG)-rank officers. The government later withdrew the proposal from the UPSC after it raised questions about including ADGP-rank officers in the panel. Two Additional Directors General of Police Sanjeeb Panda and Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa are promoted to DG rank on August 10.
Petitioners alleged that this tactical elevation was designed to smuggle junior officers into the consideration pool ahead of the scheduled selection committee meeting. Advocate General Pitambar Acharya, representing the Odisha government, strongly refuted the allegations, stating that no rules had been violated. He also questioned the maintainability of a PIL in service-related matters.
The 2006 apex court verdict and subsequent directions in the Prakash Singh case had said the DGP of a state shall be “selected by the state government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force”.
Once a person has been selected for the job, they should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation, it had said.
The outcome of the hearing will determine whether the state must reinstate its original senior panel or if a fresh empanelment process under UPSC oversight will proceed.
