Punjab to seek review of SC order on DGP’S appointment

In its July 3 order, SC had directed states to choose and appoint their DGP from a panel to be formed by UPSC based on state govt’s proposals

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab government has decided to seek a review of the Supreme Court order of July 3, directing states to choose and appoint their director general of police (DGP) from a panel to be constituted by the UPSC based on the state government’s proposals.

The state government feels the implementation of the said directions of the apex court would lead to political interference in state matters, according to an official spokesperson.

He said chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh has accepted the opinion of state advocate general Atul Nanda that the directions amounted to infringement, by the Centre, of the state’s powers, since law and order was a state subject as per the provisions of the Constitution.

The state government feels the implementation of the directions of the apex court would lead to political interference in state matters. OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON

STATE DGP TO RETIRE ON SEPT 30

The CM had sought the AG’S opinion in the matter as incumbent DGP, Suresh Arora, is due to retire on September 30.

The spokesperson said a decision was taken under the aegis of the chief minister to file an application in the apex court for modifications of its directions in its order dated July 3, after amending the Punjab Police Act 2007 to enable the constitution of a state police commission for appointment of DGP.

The suggested procedure would be in line with the recommendations of the SC in Prakash Singh & others v/s Union of India & others, (2006) 8 SCC 1 (Prakash Singh’s case), according to the government.

In Prakash Singh’s case, the court had issued directions concerning police reforms in various states.

This included a direction to select the DGP of the state “from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force.”

In its July 3, 2018 orders, the SC has directed states that “when they anticipate vacancy in the post of DG, they shall send their proposals to the Union Public Service Commission well in time i.e. at least 3 months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent on the post. The UPSC shall then prepare the panel as per the directions in the judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1, out of which the State shall pick its DG.”

ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OPINION ON ISSUE

In his opinion, Nanda has pointed out that the directions in Prakash Singh’s case were passed by the Supreme Court “in light of the absence of any legislation then occupying the field at that time”.

He further noted that the State of Punjab had enacted the Punjab Police Act, 2007 on February 5, 2008, and Section 6 of the Act dealt with the selection and term of office of the DGP “but does not provide for selection of DGPS from the panel as prepared by the UPSC.”

In the grounds made out by him for seeking review of the Supreme Court’s decision, Nanda said a reading of Prakash Singh’s case judgment makes it evident that the directions therein were to stay in force only till the respective state legislations were enacted.

Further, he pointed out that police was a subject-matter covered under Entry 2, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and thus under the exclusive legislative domain of the state government.

He also suggested amendments to be made to the Punjab Police Act, 2007 to pave the way for setting up the state police commission.