Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court in this judgment dealt with an application for clarification of its earlier order dated 3rd July 2018 passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.310 of 1996 (Prakash Singh case). The background is the landmark judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, where the Court issued directions for police reforms, including that the Director General of Police (DGP) of a State shall be selected from among the three seniormost officers empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and shall have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. Subsequently, several States enacted Police Acts that did not fully comply with these directions, leading to Writ Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 challenging their validity. In the order dated 3rd July 2018, the Court issued further directions to ensure compliance, including that States must send proposals to UPSC at least three months before a vacancy, UPSC shall prepare a panel as per Prakash Singh, and that no acting DGP should be appointed. Directions (e) and (f) dealt with the extended term beyond superannuation and that UPSC should empanel persons, as far as practicable, who have clear two years of service. The present application (I.A. No.24616 of 2019) was filed by the petitioners seeking clarification of these directions, particularly (e) and (f). The grievance was that UPSC was empanelling only officers with at least two years of residual service, thereby leaving out many suitable and eligible officers. The Court examined the principles underlying Prakash Singh and held that the emphasis was on a minimum tenure of two years for the DGP once appointed, not on a minimum residual tenure for empanelment. The Court observed that neither the appointment on the eve of retirement nor the practice of empanelling only those with two years residual service furthers the object of insulating the DGP office from influences. To achieve the object of selecting the best officer and ensuring a minimum tenure, the Court clarified that UPSC should prepare the panel from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months (i.e., at least six months of service prior to retirement). This direction will hold the field until the validity of contrary Police Acts is examined in WP(C) No.286 of 2013. The Court disposed of all interlocutory applications accordingly.
Headnote
A) Police Law - Appointment of Director General of Police - Minimum Residual Tenure - The Supreme Court clarified that the direction in Prakash Singh (supra) for a minimum tenure of two years for DGP does not require UPSC to empanel only officers with two years residual service; rather, the emphasis is on selecting the best officer and ensuring a minimum tenure of two years irrespective of superannuation. The Court fixed a minimum residual tenure of six months for empanelment to avoid favouritism and ensure efficient officers are not overlooked. (Paras 6-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Directions for Police Reforms - The Court issued clarificatory directions under Article 142 to ensure that the object of insulating the DGP office from external influences is achieved, holding that the earlier order dated 3rd July 2018 should be interpreted to mean that UPSC must empanel officers with at least six months of residual service, and this direction will hold the field until the validity of contrary Police Acts is examined in WP(C) No.286 of 2013. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the direction in Prakash Singh (supra) requiring a minimum tenure of two years for DGP implies that UPSC should empanel only officers with at least two years of residual service, and whether the practice of appointing DGP on the eve of retirement is permissible.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court clarified that the order dated 3rd July 2018 should be interpreted to mean that UPSC must prepare the panel from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months (i.e., at least six months of service prior to retirement). This direction will hold the field until the validity of contrary Police Acts is examined in WP(C) No.286 of 2013. All interlocutory applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Minimum tenure of DGP
- Residual tenure for empanelment
- UPSC panel preparation
- Article 142 directions
- Police reforms
