Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Tenure for DGP Appointments: Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 216
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao, J, Sanjiv Khanna, J.

What is the minimum period of service an officer must have left before retirement to be considered for appointment as Director General of Police (DGP)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while clarifying its previous orders, aiming to ensure merit-based appointments and prevent manipulation of tenure. This case clarifies the criteria for empanelment of officers for the post of DGP, specifically addressing the residual tenure required for consideration. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

This case arises from a series of applications seeking clarification of the Supreme Court’s directions regarding the appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs) in various states. The core issue revolves around ensuring that DGP appointments are made based on merit and that appointees have a minimum tenure of two years, as initially mandated by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 13.

The Supreme Court had previously directed that the DGP of a State should be selected from amongst the three seniormost officers who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The selected officer was to have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of their date of superannuation. However, some states were found to be circumventing this rule by appointing officers on the last day of their service, effectively granting them an extended two-year term post-retirement.

To address this, the Supreme Court issued further directions on July 3, 2018, specifying that the empanelment should consider officers with a reasonable remaining service period. However, this led to the UPSC considering only officers with at least two years of residual service, which the petitioners argued was excluding many eligible candidates.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The present application (I.A. No. 24616 of 2019) was filed seeking clarification of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on July 3, 2018, particularly clauses (e) and (f). These clauses aimed to prevent the practice of appointing DGPs on the eve of their retirement to grant them an extended tenure. However, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) interpreted these directions to mean that only officers with at least two years of residual service should be considered for empanelment. This interpretation led to the exclusion of many eligible officers, prompting the applicants to seek further clarification from the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is based on the directions issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice. The key directions, as extracted from the judgment, are:

• The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force.

• Once selected, the DGP should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of their date of superannuation.

• The DGP may be relieved of their responsibilities by the State Government in consultation with the State Security Commission under specific circumstances, such as disciplinary action, conviction in a criminal offense, or incapacitation.

The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier directions in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 13, which emphasized the need for a minimum tenure of two years for the DGP to ensure stability and prevent political interference.

Arguments

The applicants/petitioners raised two main grievances:

• The practice of States appointing DGPs on the last day of their normal tenure to ensure they get an extended term of two years, as per the directions in Prakash Singh (supra).

• The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), while empanelling officers for consideration as DGP, is considering only those with a minimum residual tenure of two years. This is resulting in many suitable and eligible officers being left out.

The applicants argued that the intent of the Supreme Court’s directions was to ensure a minimum tenure of two years for the selected DGP, not to mandate that only officers with two years of service remaining should be considered. They contended that the UPSC’s interpretation was unduly restrictive and excluded many capable officers from consideration.

The applicants also pointed out that the practice of appointing officers on the last day of their service to grant them an extended tenure was against the spirit of the directions in Prakash Singh (supra), which aimed to ensure merit-based appointments and prevent manipulation of tenure.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is correct in considering only those officers for empanelment who have a minimum residual tenure of two years.

2. Whether the practice of States appointing DGPs on the last day of their tenure is in line with the directions in Prakash Singh (supra).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court clarified its earlier order of July 3, 2018, stating that the recommendation for appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months.

The Court emphasized that the intent of the directions in Prakash Singh (supra) was to ensure a minimum tenure of two years for the selected DGP, not to mandate that only officers with two years of service remaining should be considered for empanelment.

The Court also noted that neither the earlier directions nor the Police Acts of various states contemplated a fixed residual tenure for an officer to be recommended for appointment as DGP. The Court fixed a residual tenure of six months as a reasonable basis to achieve the object of ensuring merit-based appointments and preventing manipulation of tenure.

The Supreme Court considered the authority of Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 13. The court used this authority to clarify the intent behind the directions in the case. The Court reiterated the importance of a minimum two-year tenure for the DGP and emphasized that the appointment should be based on merit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure that the appointment of DGPs is based on merit and that the process is free from manipulation or favoritism. The Court emphasized that the two-year minimum tenure was intended to provide stability and prevent political interference, not to restrict the pool of eligible candidates.

The Court also considered the practical implications of its directions, recognizing that the UPSC’s interpretation of a two-year residual tenure was excluding many suitable officers. By fixing a six-month residual tenure, the Court aimed to balance the need for merit-based appointments with the practical realities of service and retirement.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal principles and practical considerations. The Court relied on its earlier directions in Prakash Singh (supra) to reiterate the importance of a minimum two-year tenure for the DGP. However, the Court also recognized that the UPSC’s interpretation of a two-year residual tenure was unduly restrictive and was excluding many capable officers.

The Court’s decision to fix a six-month residual tenure was a pragmatic one, aimed at balancing the need for merit-based appointments with the practical realities of service and retirement. The Court also sought to prevent the manipulation of tenure by States appointing DGPs on the last day of their service.

Key Takeaways

• The minimum residual tenure for an officer to be considered for empanelment as Director General of Police (DGP) is six months.

• The two-year minimum tenure for a DGP is for the selected officer, not a requirement for empanelment.

• States should not appoint DGPs on the last day of their service to grant them an extended tenure.

• The Supreme Court’s directions are aimed at ensuring merit-based appointments and preventing manipulation of tenure.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the recommendation for appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the minimum residual tenure for an officer to be considered for empanelment as Director General of Police (DGP) is six months. This clarifies the earlier directions of the Supreme Court and prevents the exclusion of eligible officers. The judgment also reinforces the principle that DGP appointments should be based on merit and free from manipulation of tenure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2019) clarifies the minimum residual tenure for empanelment of DGPs to be six months. This decision ensures that a wider pool of eligible officers is considered for the post, while also maintaining the principle of a minimum two-year tenure for the selected candidate. The judgment seeks to prevent the manipulation of tenure by States and reinforces the need for merit-based appointments.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Appointment of Director General of Police
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 142, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is the minimum service period required for an officer to be considered for the post of Director General of Police (DGP)?
A: The officer must have at least six months of service remaining before their normal retirement date to be considered for empanelment as DGP.

Q: Does the selected DGP need to have two years of service remaining at the time of appointment?
A: No, the selected DGP is required to have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of their date of superannuation. The two-year requirement does not apply to the residual tenure at the time of empanelment.

Q: Can a State appoint a DGP on the last day of their service to grant them an extended tenure?
A: No, this practice is against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s directions, which aim to ensure merit-based appointments and prevent manipulation of tenure.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s intention behind these directions?
A: The Supreme Court’s intention was to ensure that DGP appointments are based on merit, that the selected officer has a minimum tenure of two years, and that the process is free from political interference or manipulation.