DGP Appointment

DGP Appointment

Subject :Polity

Section : Msc

Concept :

• The Nagaland government on Saturday issued an order appointing Rupin Sharma as Director General of the state police, and relieved him of the charge of Home Guards and civil defence.

Background

• On January 23, the Supreme Court had directed the Nagaland government to appoint the 1992-batch IPS officer as police chief within a week.
• The order was passed after Nagaland challenged the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) recommendation of Sharma as the only candidate for the post.

Procedure of DGP Appointment

• Supreme Court had refrained State governments from appointing DGPs without first consulting the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

It came up with the following guidelines:

• The State governments concerned have to send UPSC the names of the probables three months before the incumbent DGPs are to retire.
• The UPSC will prepare a panel of three officers fit to be DGP and send it back.
• The UPSC shall, as far as practicable, choose the people within the zone of consideration who have got a clear two years of service and must give due weightage to merit and seniority.
• The State, in turn, shall “immediately” appoint one of the persons shortlisted by the UPSC.
• On the practice of States appointing “Acting DGPs”, the court rejected the idea of acting or temporary DGPs, i.e.. States shall appoint a person as permanent DGP.
• The court also ruled that any rule or state law on the subject of appointment of police officers will be kept in suspension. However, the States, which have made laws on police appointments, can move to court seeking modifications of its order.
• The court had passed the series of directions on an application made by the Centre for modification of its judgement in Prakash Singh Case of 2006 for reforms and transparency in the State police forces.

Prakash Singh Case

• In Prakash Singh Case of 2006, the Supreme Court gave 7 directives with a view to bring in police reforms.
• In passing these directives the Court put on record the deep rooted problems of politicization, lack of accountability mechanisms and systemic weaknesses that have resulted in poor all round performance and fomented present public dissatisfaction with policing.

The directives are:-

• Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police, lay down broad policy guideline and evaluate the performance of the state police.
• Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years.
• Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years.
• Separate the investigation and law & order functions of the police.
• Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
• Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct.
• Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organizations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years.