Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain West Bengal Govt's Plea Seeking Permission To Appoint DGP Without UPSC's Involvement

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the West Bengal Government, sought permission to withdraw the application after the bench expressed disinclination to entertain it. Asserting that the State had autonomy and ultimate power of superintendence over police officials, the WB Government in its Intervention Application had requested the Top Court to modify its 2018 order in the Prakash Singh's case on police reforms that had imposed a mandate on the State Governments to appoint DGP from a panel consisting three most senior police officials, prepared by the UPSC.

The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna, while allowing State to withdraw the application, remarked,

"Mr Luthra, we'll allow you to withdraw this application and you may argue this point in the amicus. We have individuals who file petitions, if states also start doing this, how will we hear the matters. You only say that bail matters are not being listed?"

The Court has however allowed West Bengal Government to implead in the main case relating to police reforms.

During the course of hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Prakash Singh requested for an early hearing of the main petition on police reforms.

Agreeing to hear the matter in October, 2021 the bench said, "Yes we'll start hearing the matter. It hasn't seen light of the day since many years."

Stressing on the point that the State of West Bengal's application seeking similar directions was earlier also not allowed, Justice Rao asked the Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra  to not file repeated applications.

"Your argument was rejected earlier also. Mr Luthra, we'll be very Frank. Please don't file repeated applications. This is an abuse of the process of law," said Justice Rao.

The State Government had contended that involvement of UPSC in selection of DGP of state was not not permissible under the Constitution of India and was against the federal fabric of the Constitution.

"The Ministry of Home Affairs in the affidavit filed in Prakash Singh's case had accepted the position," the application also stated.

Averring that UPSC had a limited role to provide consultation on the principles to be followed in the appointments to service of Union and promotions and transfer of such candidates, the West Bengal government in its application had stated that UPSC could not be entrusted with the function of preparing the panel of officers for the appointment of DGP till Parliament makes a new law.

Emphasising on Articles 320(3) and 321 of the Constitution of India, the application had contended that UPSC neither had the jurisdiction nor the expertise to consider and appoint the DGP of the state.

Case Title: Prakash Singh and Ors v Union of India