Supreme Court Issues Notice To Jharkhand Chief Secretary In Contempt Plea Against Appointment Of Acting DGP

The Supreme Court on September 6 sought the response of the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand in a contempt petition challenging the appointment of IPS Anurag Gupta as the Acting Director General of Police (DGP) to be violative of the decision in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the contempt petition and sought responses from the State's Chief Secretary as well as the Acting DGP within two weeks. The Court however dispensed the requirement of physical presence of the respondents.

“Issue notice to the first and the second respondents, returnable in two weeks. The personal presence of the alleged respondent-contemnors is dispensed with for the present.”

The petitioner represented by Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan argued that Lalbiaktluanga Khiangte IAS, the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand (Respondent no.1) and IPS Anurag Gupta (Respondent no.2)  are to be held liable for the non-compliance of the Prakash Singh Decision and the subsequent directives issued by the Top Court in July 2018 and March 2019 along with the recent order of January 16, 2023.

The plea states that the appointment of Gupta through the notification dated July 25, on 'ad-hoc basis' as the Acting DGP (head of police force) violated the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness. It added that in doing so, the previous DGP appointed through UPSC empanelment was also relieved from his duties.

Notably, the Court in 2018 had passed a slew of directions in light of Prakash Singh decision relating to police reforms and restrained all states and Union territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGPs to avoid favouritism and nepotism in such high-level appointments. The Court has time and again reiterated that the States shall appoint a DGP from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empaneled 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.

On January 16, 2023, the Court while hearing a similar contempt proceedings took on record the statement of the UPSC Chairperson and Chief Secretary of Jharkhand which said that the appointment of the DGP as per the directives and panel recommendations would be completed and notified with effect from February 12, 2023. The bench of then Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice AS Bopanna was hearing a similar issue of contempt against the State of Jharkhand for arbitrarily removing the then incumbent DGP KN Chaubey who was appointed on May 31, 2019, as per the directions laid down by the Top Court.

The following reliefs are sought by petitioner: 

A. Initiate Contempt Proceedings against the alleged contemnors for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the judgements/orders dated 22.09.2006, 03.07.2018 and 13.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 310 of 1996 and order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Contempt Petition No. 403 Of 2021;

B. Quash the notification dated 25.07.2024 issued by the Contemnor No.1

The matter is now listed for hearing on September 23.

What Was The Prakash Singh Judgement Of 2006 & Subsequent Developments

The Apex Court, while deciding the PIL filed by two former DGPs Prakash Singh and N K Singh in 2006, had issued several directions, including setting up of a state security commission, to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police. The bench of then CJI YK Sabharwal and Justices CK Thakkar and PK Balasubramanyan held the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and Superintendents of Police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.

The Court in July 2018 restrained all states from appointing the Director General of Police (DGP) in an acting capacity, observing that such a concept is not perceptible on any analysis of its 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh's case.

The bench headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra comprising Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and A. M. Khanwilkar required that endeavor be made by all concerned to ensure that the person so selected and appointed shall continue to hold the post despite his superannuation.

However, it was clarified that the said direction may not be construed to mean that the UPSC may empanel, for the purpose of selection as the DGP, only those officers who have a clear 2 years of service remaining.

Continuing, the bench obligated all states to send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancy to the UPSC well in time, that is, 3 months prior to the retirement of the incumbent, whereupon, the UPSC shall prepare the panel of the three senior most officers of the Department based on their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force, as stipulated by the Prakash Singh judgment.

Finally, the panel so prepared shall be intimated to the state, which shall then immediately select and appoint one of the persons empanelled.

The Bench also directed that any legislations/rules that may have been framed by the states which affect the 2006 judgment shall remain in abeyance, granting liberty to any state having an issue with these directions to approach the apex court in an application for amendment.

On March 13, 2019 the bench of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi clarified the 2018 directives, stating that only officers who have a minimum of six months tenure left in service should be considered for the post of Director General of Police (DGP). It further added that the recommendation for post of DGP by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and preparation of the panel should be purely on the basis of merit.

The Contempt Petition has been filed with the assistance of AOR Vikas Mehta.

Case Details : NARESH MAKANI v. LALBIAKTLUANGA KHIANGTE & ORS. CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.35226/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order