The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up states for violating its judgment on appointment of director generals of police (DGP) and sought responses from six states on why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated over their failure to recommend names to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
The order came a month after the top court on February 12 authorised the UPSC to point out those states which had failed to respond to its requests to send names for DGP appointment ahead of the anticipated vacancy.
Following this order, the UPSC submitted a list of six states namely Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur and Mizoram which have not responded to the commission’s request to send names. Two other states – Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh claimed they had enacted their own laws in line with the Prakash Singh judgment of 2006 which directed states to follow the judgment till they enact their own laws.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, “These states (six in number) have not forwarded any proposals to the UPSC for empanelment of officers for DGP. Prima facie these states are in contempt.”
Posting the matter after two weeks, the bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said, “The states are required to respond that in the absence of any valid law enacted by them in terms of the Prakash Singh judgment, why appropriate action under Contempt of Court should not be taken for withholding appointment of DGP out of a panel proposed by UPSC.”
UPSC counsel Hrishikesh Baruah told the court that in 2019, the top court passed an order directing that any state law that runs counter to the 2006 judgment shall remain in abeyance. The states of UP and Jharkhand informed the court that their laws are in place which require a committee headed by a former chief justice or judge of a high court to recommend the panel.
The court said, “The Union government, UPSC and states are bound by the directions in Prakash Singh. Can you frame a law contrary to it? We hope the states do not create an embarrassing position for themselves.” The two states were asked to respond why the names have not been recommended as per the earlier judgment even as UP submitted it will be responding soon to the commission.
Punjab, represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, informed the court that the state has also passed a law in this regard which is stuck as the President has refused to grant assent. This decision of the President is now under challenge, he said.
The court made it clear that these proceedings are neither to determine the right of states to enact laws nor the President’s refusal to grant assent. “If you have a law, follow it. If you don’t, then follow our judgment. You cannot enact an extraconstitutional law use it as a shield against contempt.”
When the turn came for West Bengal to respond, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said that the names have been sent to UPSC. But the bench remarked, “The state is more busy in sending their DGP to the Rajya Sabha,” in an apparent reference to the ruling party in the state – Trinamool Congress (TMC) nominating former DGP Rajeev Kumar to the Upper House.
The court also rapped Chhattisgarh which failed to implement the recommendation sent by UPSC in May last year.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran assisting the court as amicus curiae told the court that instead of the court being bothered about appointment of DGPs state-wise, these matters could be looked into by the respective high courts as it involves implementation of the Prakash Singh judgment. However, he strongly recommended that the validity of the various state laws enacted in this regard should be heard by the top court.
The court agreed to take up this proposal by the amicus on the next date. Prakash Singh, who himself is a former DGP, also moved an application for a direction that after UPSC recommends empanelment, a high level committee of chief minister, Opposition leader in the state, and a nominee of chief justice should select the DGP.
The bench dismissed this suggestion as “impractical” and said, “For selection of DGP, you need a central authority. UPSC is that body and so far, there are no complaints against it.” Ramachandran supported this view by adding that DGP should be an officer who enjoys confidence of CM and thus, the selection should be left to the state alone.
