Union Public Service Commission Amends
Rules for Selection of State Directors General of Police
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has amended
the rules regarding the selection of Directors General of Police (DGPs) for the
states. This step has been taken following repeated violations by states of the
Supreme Court's directives—issued in the landmark *Prakash Singh vs. Union of
India* case—concerning delays and irregularities in the appointment of DGPs.
The UPSC has clarified that states must strictly adhere to the timelines
mandated by the Supreme Court for DGP appointments. To ensure continuity in
leadership, states are now required to submit their proposals at least three
months prior to the retirement of the incumbent DGP. This clarification comes
in the wake of recurring delays by states in forwarding nominations, as well as
instances of appointing 'acting' or 'temporary' DGPs in contravention of
judicial directives.
Key Changes in the Appointment Process
¨
Mandatory Timeline:** It
is now mandatory for states to submit their proposals three months prior to the
vacancy arising.
¨
Supreme Court Permission
for Delays:** For any delay (barring exceptional circumstances such as death or
resignation), it is mandatory to obtain permission or clarification from the
Supreme Court.
¨
UPSC's Limited
Discretion:** The UPSC cannot initiate the selection process based on a delayed
proposal unless such delay has been explicitly permitted or condoned by the
Supreme Court.
¨
Rigorous Selection
Process:** The UPSC will prepare a panel comprising three eligible IPS
officers. The State Government is required to appoint one of these officers
from this specific panel.
¨
Ban on Acting DGPs:** The
Supreme Court has reiterated that, under the law, "there is no concept of
an 'acting DGP'," and states have been directed to refrain from appointing
police chiefs on an *ad hoc* or temporary basis.
Prakash Singh Case (2006)
¨
The Prakash Singh vs.
Union of India* case marks a watershed moment in the realm of police reforms.
It began with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at undertaking systemic
police reforms to reduce political control over the police machinery and to
ensure professional autonomy and accountability.
¨
Directive 1: Separation
of Investigation and Law & Order Functions:** The Court recommended
separating police functions related to law and order (an executive function)
from those related to criminal investigation (a component of the criminal
justice system).
¨
Directive 2: Appointment
of the DGP:** To ensure that the appointment of the Director General of Police
(DGP) is conducted through a transparent process and that the incumbent holds a
minimum tenure of two years. State governments are required to send proposals
for the appointment of the DGP to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at
least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent officer. The UPSC,
in consultation with the State government, prepares a panel of three eligible
police officers. Subsequently, the State government appoints one of these
officers as the DGP.
¨
Directive 3: Minimum
Tenure for Police Officers:** To ensure that other police officers deployed for
operational duties—including the Superintendent of Police (SP) in charge of a
district and the Station House Officer (SHO) in charge of a police station—also
hold a minimum tenure of two years.
¨
Directive 4:
Establishment of a State Security Commission (SSC):** To ensure that the State
government does not exert undue influence or pressure on the police; to
formulate broad policy guidelines; and to evaluate the performance of the State
police.
¨Directive
5: Constitution of a Police Establishment Board:** Its objective is to decide
on matters regarding the transfer, promotion, deployment, and other
service-related issues of police officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police (DSP) and below. Additionally, this Board submits its recommendations
regarding the deployment and transfer of officers holding ranks higher than
that of a DSP.
¨
Directive 6:
Establishment of a Police Complaints Authority (PCA): At the State level, to
inquire into public complaints regarding cases of serious misconduct against
police officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and
above—including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody. At
the District level, to inquire into public complaints regarding cases of
serious misconduct against police personnel below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DSP).
¨
Directive 7: Constitution
of a National Security Commission at the Central level: Its objective is to
prepare a panel for the selection and appointment of the Chiefs of Central
Police Organizations (CPOs), ensuring a minimum tenure of two years for them.
Various Committees/Commissions on the
Police Commission
¨
National Police
Commission (1977): Constituted under the Morarji Desai government, this
commission recommended measures to improve the efficiency of the police force
and to foster a professional approach.
¨
Ribeiro Committee on
Police Reforms (1998): Appointed by the Supreme Court to review the
implementation of the recommendations of the National Police Commission (NPC),
this committee recommended the establishment of a ‘Police Performance and
Accountability Commission’ and a ‘District Complaints Authority’ in the states.
¨
Padmanabhaiah Committee
on Police Reforms (2000): The committee recommended that the selection of Constables
and Sub-Inspectors should be based on a preliminary qualifying screening test.
¨ Malimath Committee on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System (2003): It recommended the separation of investigative functions from law-and-order duties, the enhancement of forensic science capabilities, and the introduction of the system of ‘plea bargaining’.
¨ Mushahary Committee (2004): It recommended the constitution of a Selection Board for the recruitment of police personnel (to be chaired by a DIG, assisted by an SP), a revision of the pay scales and working hours of Constables, and an improvement in the promotion prospects for Constables.