SC steers clear of J&K DGP decision
ROW OVER TOP COP POST The CJIled bench refuses to interfere in state government’s move to appoint an acting DGP
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would not interfere with Jammu and Kashmir government’s move to appoint an acting director of police (DGP) without hearing the attorney general’s views on the issue.
A bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked senior advocate KK Venugopal, Centre’s top law officer, to give his opinion on J&K government’s decision after an objection was raised by advocate Prashant Bhushan against the ad-hoc appointment of Dilbagh Singh as police chief of the state.
Singh replaced police commissioner SP Vaid on September 6.
Bhushan said Singh’s appointment was in violation of SC’s July 3 judgement that prohibits appointment of acting DGPs. He said there was no reason to remove Vaid mid-way. He was asked to leave without any charge and without consultation with state security commission, as required by the top court’s judgement.
J&K government counsel Shoeb Alam said Singh’s appointment was a purely interim measure, to tide over the peculiar situation till a regular appointment is made. “We can’t afford the police force to be without a chief,” he said, citing the law and order situation in the Valley. The court is expected to hear the matter next week.
J&K government has moved the top court seeking modification of its July 3 order that restrained all states and union territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGPs to avoid favouritism and nepotism. States were also required to send names of three senior IPS officers well in advance to the Union Public Service Com- mission (UPSC) for clearance before appointing an officer to the post of DGP. The direction was issued in a case filed by retired IPS officer Prakash Singh.
In its application before the top court, J&K justified Dilbagh Singh’s appointment on the ground the state could not have been without a police chief, especially in view of the upcoming panchayat polls and security situations.
Alam said in compliance of the SC order a list of three officers was sent to UPSC within 12 hours of the appointment.
In his submission, Venugopal said the top court’s order in Prakash Singh’s case was to prevent misuse of the two-year fixed tenure given in an earlier verdict of the apex court. Several states, he said, were making appointments of DGPs on acting basis and confirming them on eve of superannuation.
Bhushan, appearing for Prakash Singh, said Singh was earlier suspended in a recruitment scam and J&K government had committed contempt.
He took court’s permission to file a formal contempt application against the state.
The state government, in its plea, said, “In view of the complex security concerns of the state, the peculiar ground situation prevailing therein, the upcoming panchayat and local body elections, insurgent and terror related activities, the unique law and order requirements, it is essential to have a head of the police force in the state of Jammu and Kashmir at all times.”
The SC had earlier passed directions on police reforms in the country and restrained all states and union territories from appointing any officer as acting DGPs.
It said that states are required to send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to UPSC at least 3 months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent. The UPSC will prepare a panel as per the earlier directions of the court and intimate to the state about the selected IPS officers, it had said, adding the state will immediately appoint one of the persons.
The apex court’s guidelines, which envisaged role of the UPSC in DGP appointment in a state, could not be followed as the “present case is not that of an ‘anticipated vacancy’ which would have enabled the state to forward a panel to the UPSC and comply with the other rigors of the applicable procedure,” it said.