The Supreme Court has deferred until September 2 the hearing on a Public Interest Litigation challenging the process being followed by the Odisha government for selecting the state’s next Director General of Police. The matter has drawn attention because the petition alleges that the proposed panel could include an officer whose eligibility and seniority are being questioned in the context of the Supreme Court’s long-standing directions on appointment of state police chiefs.
The hearing took place on Tuesday before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The court was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Odisha government, that the state had already filed its counter affidavit in response to the allegations. The bench, however, observed that the government’s response was not properly available on the court record and indicated that it wanted to examine the state’s stand before taking the matter forward.
Supreme Court Wants Odisha’s Response on Record
The immediate reason for the adjournment was procedural but significant. The Odisha government told the Supreme Court that it had submitted its reply to the PIL, but the bench noted that the response was not available on the record in a manner that allowed the judges to consider it.
Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that the court wanted to examine the state government’s position before proceeding with the substantive issues raised in the petition. With that, the hearing was pushed to September 2, giving the court an opportunity to go through the government’s response and assess the allegations concerning the proposed DGP selection process.
The development comes at a sensitive point in Odisha’s police administration. The tenure of Y B Khurania as Odisha DGP was scheduled to end on August 16, leaving the process of selecting his successor under close scrutiny.
PIL Questions Proposed DGP Panel
At the heart of the litigation is the petitioner’s allegation that the Odisha government was attempting to include a relatively junior officer in the group of names that could be considered for appointment as the state’s police chief. The petitioner has argued that such a move would not be consistent with the principles and safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh v Union of India.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioner, has raised questions about the inclusion of an officer who was serving at the Additional Director General of Police level and was subsequently promoted in Odisha. According to the petitioner’s submissions, the state’s decision to consider such an officer for inclusion in a fresh panel could have implications for the established procedure governing DGP appointments.
The Odisha government, however, has taken a different position. Its stand is that promotions of senior IPS officers are part of normal administrative functioning and that the state is entitled to send a fresh proposal to the Union Public Service Commission, provided the officers included in that proposal fulfil the applicable eligibility and rank requirements.
Prakash Singh Judgment at the Centre of Dispute
The legal controversy is closely linked to the Supreme Court’s directions in the Prakash Singh case, which became a landmark intervention in the reform of India’s police administration. Among other measures, the court laid down safeguards intended to reduce arbitrary interference in the appointment and functioning of state police chiefs.
Under the framework laid down by the Supreme Court, the state government is required to select its DGP from among the three senior-most officers of the police department who have been empanelled by the UPSC for promotion to the DGP rank. The empanelment process takes into account factors such as length of service, a very good service record and the breadth of experience considered necessary to lead a state police force.
The Supreme Court also directed that a selected DGP should ordinarily have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the officer’s date of superannuation. These safeguards were intended to provide stability to the police leadership and ensure that appointments are based on established criteria rather than short-term administrative or political considerations.
The petitioner has alleged that the process being followed in Odisha could dilute or undermine these safeguards. The state, on the other hand, maintains that its administrative actions are within the applicable rules and that eligible officers can be proposed for consideration.
Supreme Court Had Earlier Restricted UPSC Action
The latest hearing follows an earlier intervention by the Supreme Court in the same dispute. The court had directed the UPSC not to finalise the names of probable candidates for appointment as Odisha DGP until August 18.
That direction came after the PIL raised concerns over the composition of the panel that Odisha was preparing to send to the UPSC. The petitioner had alleged that the state was seeking to introduce an officer who did not meet the required criteria into the process.
The petitioner’s side also pointed to the state’s earlier decision to withdraw a panel that had already been forwarded to the UPSC. The subsequent move to prepare another panel became one of the key points of concern raised before the Supreme Court.
Odisha Had Sent More Than One Panel to UPSC
Details placed before the Supreme Court indicate that Odisha had initially forwarded a panel to the UPSC in April. A second panel was subsequently sent in May and, according to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it contained three DGPs and eight ADGPs.
Chidambaram had told the court that the UPSC was scheduled to meet on August 7 to consider a panel containing three eligible DGP-level officers for the Odisha appointment. However, the state subsequently withdrew the list, prompting questions over why the earlier proposal had been taken back and what prompted the preparation of another panel.
The petitioner alleged that the withdrawal was followed by an attempt to promote an ADGP and include that officer in a fresh list proposed to be sent to the UPSC. The state has disputed the suggestion that its administrative decisions were improper, maintaining that promotions and the preparation of panels fall within its administrative domain as long as the officers ultimately proposed satisfy the prescribed conditions.
