Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for Director General of Police in Punjab: Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 16, 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No.6905 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14623 of 2020)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a selection process for a high-ranking police position be challenged if the selection committee includes a member who may have a conflict of interest? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) for the state of Punjab. The core issue revolved around whether the selection process followed the guidelines previously established by the Supreme Court and if allegations of bias against a member of the selection committee were valid. This judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and B.R. Gavai, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) for the State of Punjab. Mr. Suresh Arora, the previous DGP, was due to retire, necessitating a new appointment. The State of Punjab sent a list of 12 officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for consideration. Among these officers were Mr. Siddharth Chattopadhyaya and Mr. Mohd. Mustafa, the appellants in this case. The UPSC constituted an Empanelment Committee, which shortlisted three candidates: Mr. Dinkar Gupta, Mr. M.K. Tiwari, and Mr. V.K. Bhawra. The State Government then appointed Mr. Dinkar Gupta as the DGP.

Aggrieved by this appointment, Mr. Chattopadhyaya and Mr. Mustafa filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. They argued that the selection process was flawed and did not adhere to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India. The Tribunal ruled in their favor, setting aside the appointment and directing a fresh selection process. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana overturned the Tribunal’s decision, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the selection and appointment of Mr. Dinkar Gupta as DGP. The Tribunal held that the selection process did not adhere to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, particularly regarding the consideration of seniority, service record, and range of experience. The Tribunal also criticized the UPSC’s Draft Guidelines and the selection of core policing areas for assessment.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, however, overturned the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court held that the UPSC’s Draft Guidelines were in line with the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh’s case and that the selection process was valid. The High Court also noted that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the domain of expert bodies like the UPSC.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is based on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, which aimed to bring about police reforms. The Supreme Court had directed that the selection of the DGP should be based on three criteria: length of service, a very good record, and a range of experience for heading the police force. These directions were issued under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and were to be implemented until the legislature passed appropriate laws.

The UPSC, in response to the Supreme Court’s directions, framed Draft Guidelines for empanelling officers for the post of DGP. These guidelines stipulated that the selection should be merit-based, with consideration given to the officer’s service record, range of experience, and seniority. The guidelines also empowered the Empanelment Committee to adopt its own methods for assessing the suitability of officers.

Additionally, the Punjab Police Act, 2007, was enacted, which also stipulated that the DGP shall be selected by the State Government from among the Indian Police Service officers and on appointment, the DGP shall have a tenure of not less than two years.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the selection process was vitiated by bias, as one of the members of the Empanelment Committee, Respondent No. 5, was allegedly prejudiced against Mr. Chattopadhyaya due to a report filed by him in the High Court.
• They contended that the Draft Guidelines framed by the UPSC were not in line with the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh’s case, and therefore, the selection process was flawed.
• The appellants also argued that the identification of five core policing areas for assessment was arbitrary and tailor-made to favor Respondent No. 4.
• They emphasized that seniority was not given due weightage, as Mr. Chattopadhyaya was senior to Mr. Dinkar Gupta.
• It was also argued that the list of 12 officers forwarded by the State of Punjab for selection to the single post of DGP was irregular.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Draft Guidelines were framed by the UPSC to give effect to the judgment in Prakash Singh’s case and were approved by the Supreme Court.
• They submitted that the selection of five core policing areas was done after considering the specific needs of the State of Punjab.
• The respondents contended that the Empanelment Committee was not required to record reasons for its decision.
• They also argued that the allegations of bias were baseless and that the appellants had not raised any objections to the participation of Respondent No. 5 in the Empanelment Committee earlier.
• The State of Punjab argued that the Appellant abused his position as the head of a special investigation team by filing a report which was not signed by the other members of the team to tarnish the reputation of Respondent No. 4 and 5.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list but addressed the following key questions:

• Whether the selection process for the post of DGP (HoPF) was in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.
• Whether the Draft Guidelines framed by the UPSC were valid and in conformity with the Supreme Court’s directions.
• Whether the selection of core policing areas for assessment was arbitrary and tailor-made to favor a particular candidate.
• Whether the Empanelment Committee was required to record reasons for its decision.
• Whether the selection process was vitiated by bias due to the participation of Respondent No. 5 in the Empanelment Committee.
• Whether the Appellants are estopped from challenging the recommendations made by the Empanelment Committee, given the fact that they had taken a calculated chance, and not protested till the selection panel was made public.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities in its judgment, which are categorized below:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
• Section 6 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007: This section deals with the selection and tenure of the Director General of Police.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied heavily on the directions given in Prakash Singh v. Union of India to determine the validity of the selection process. The Court also cited several other cases to support its reasoning, particularly on the principles of judicial review, bias, and estoppel.

• Prakash Singh v. Union of India: The Court held that the Draft Guidelines were framed to give effect to the judgment in Prakash Singh’s case.
• Madan Lal and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others: The Court applied the ratio of this case to hold that the Appellants were estopped from challenging the recommendations made by the Empanelment Committee.
• Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Others: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the Appellants cannot challenge the selection process after voluntarily participating in it.
• P .D. Dinakaran (1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee and Others: The Court referred to this case to explain the concept of bias and the test of real likelihood of bias.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Adherence to Guidelines: The Court was convinced that the UPSC’s Draft Guidelines were in conformity with the directions issued in Prakash Singh’s case. The court emphasized that the guidelines were framed to give effect to the judgment in Prakash Singh’s case.
• Expert Body’s Discretion: The Court showed deference to the Empanelment Committee’s discretion in selecting the core policing areas and assessing the merit of the officers. The court observed that the assessment of relative merit is within the domain of the Empanelment Committee.
• Lack of Bias: The Court found no merit in the allegations of bias against Respondent No. 5, noting that the Appellants were aware of his participation in the Empanelment Committee and did not raise any objections earlier.
• Estoppel: The Court held that the Appellants were estopped from challenging the selection process as they had participated in it without any protest.
• No Requirement to Record Reasons: The Court clarified that the Empanelment Committee was not legally required to record reasons for its decision.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

Final Order

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision and affirming the appointment of Mr. Dinkar Gupta as the Director General of Police (HoPF) for the State of Punjab.

Flowchart of the Judgment:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohd. Mustafa v. Union of India is a significant ruling in the realm of service law and police reforms. It reaffirms the importance of adhering to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s case for the selection of DGP. The judgment also underscores the principle that courts should not interfere with the decisions of expert bodies unless there are clear indications of bias, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. Additionally, the Court’s emphasis on the principle of estoppel highlights the need for timely and appropriate challenges to administrative processes.

Impact of the Judgment:

• Precedent: This judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving the selection of high-ranking police officials.
• UPSC Guidelines: It validates the UPSC’s Draft Guidelines for empanelling officers for the post of DGP.
• Judicial Restraint: It reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in matters of expert selection.
• Estoppel: It emphasizes that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest cannot later challenge it if they are not selected.