Bhubaneswar: Uncertainty mounted over the appointment of Odisha’s Director General of Police (DGP) as the Supreme Court did not list the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), challenging the appointment process, in its cause list for Wednesday.
The matter was mentioned before a Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, on Tuesday by senior advocate P Chidambaram, who urged the apex court to list the case urgently for hearing. In response, the CJI bench had remarked that the matter would be listed “tomorrow”. However, when the Supreme Court released both its Main Cause List and Supplementary Cause List for Court No. 1 headed by the CJI, the Odisha DGP case was notably missing, according to reports.
The petition, which alleges irregularities in the preparation of the panel of officers for the top post, is now expected to be mentioned for an urgent hearing on August 18, reports added.
The development comes as the Union Public Service Commission is scheduled to hold a key meeting on Thursday at which a three-member panel of eligible officers could be finalised for the Odisha government to choose from. The meeting assumes added urgency because incumbent DGP Y B Khurania is due to demit office on August 16.
Senior advocate Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioner, had on Tuesday successfully sought an urgent listing before the bench. He argued that the Odisha government was attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 directions in the Prakash Singh case, which mandate that a state DGP must be selected from among the three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC on the basis of length of service, service record and experience in heading the police force. The selected officer is also to be given a minimum fixed tenure of two years irrespective of the date of superannuation.
According to the petition, the state had initially forwarded a short list of three DGP-rank officers—Sudhansu Sarangi (1990 batch), R P Koche and Susanta Nath (both 1993 batch)—to the UPSC in April. The following month it expanded the panel to 11 names by adding eight Additional Directors General of Police. The UPSC was scheduled to consider the matter on August 7. Chidambaram informed the court that when the UPSC insisted on evaluating only DGP-ranked officers, the state withdrew the panel and moved swiftly to promote 1994-batch ADGPs Sanjeeb Panda and Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa to the DG rank in order to accommodate them in a revised list. The petition asserts that such manoeuvres attempt to circumvent merit and seniority standards laid down by the top court to insulate police leadership from political influence.
The bench noted that the UPSC is fully aware of the court’s earlier orders and is expected to ensure compliance. “If a panel of ineligible officers is being sent, we expect the UPSC to act in accordance with our directions,” the Chief Justice observed.
Chidambaram submitted that the matter had been brought as a PIL because serving officers in the race for the post would ordinarily be reluctant to challenge the state government directly.
Following Monday’s promotions, a revised panel featuring both newly elevated and existing DGP-rank officers is expected to be submitted to the UPSC on Thursday, where proceedings remain closely watched for strict adherence to Supreme Court guidelines amidst ongoing apex court litigation.
Speculation is growing over whether the state government will appoint an in-charge/officiating DGP temporarily pending a final hearing or wait for formal Supreme Court directions. All eyes remain on the Supreme Court’s upcoming cause list to see when the PIL will be officially assigned a hearing date
