SC agrees to hear pleas on police reforms

New Delhi, Aug (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear pleas over police reforms and the ad-hoc appointment of state police chiefs despite the 2006 judgement barring such appointments.

A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria would also consider an application of petitioner and former DGP Prakash Singh seeking to put a system in place in which a panel comprising chief minister, the leader of opposition and the chief justice of the high court select the director general of police (DGP).

“We will consider all the issues,” the CJI said and ordered the listing of pleas.

The pleas, including a few contempt petitions, were listed before the top court and alleged non-compliance with its 2006 judgment, which mandates reforms in police administration to insulate the force from political interference.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner and former DGP Prakash Singh, urged the process for appointing DGPs should be made similar to that of the CBI director.

He proposed the setting up of the three-member panel for appointments.

“Like in the CBI, the state police chief should be chosen through an independent panel to prevent political misuse,” Bhushan argued.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan said the spirit of earlier rulings was being flouted.

“There cannot be acting DGPs. This court has frowned upon such practices repeatedly. Yet states continue to bypass the law,” he added.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Jharkhand government, said the issue of law and order was a state subject and the role of UPSC in selection of DGP should be re-examined.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there was no reason to distrust the chief minister as he was an elected representative of the people.

Sibal questioned the role of the UPSC in state police appointments, saying the matter was also “federal in nature” since law and order is a state subject.

The bench said while it could exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce reforms, legislative intervention would eventually prevail.

“If the legislature enacts a law, what will prevail… our directions or the statute?” the CJI asked.

Former DGP and petitioner Prakash Singh addressed the court in person, lamenting the original PIL had gone “into deep freeze” due to a lack of monitoring.

He said the absence of regular oversight allowed states to dilute compliance.

Amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran suggested high courts to be tasked with setting up special benches to review implementation every three months.

On July 28, the bench agreed to examine the range of issues including the ad-hoc appointment of DGPs in some states.

The pleas relate to the implementation of the top court's 2006 verdict on police reforms that recommended steps like separation of investigation and law and order duties.

After 2006, the top court also passed another set of directions, including no ad hoc or interim appointment to the post of DGP by the state governments.

The UPSC, in consultation with the state government and other stakeholders, will have to prepare a list of three senior police officers and the state can appoint any one of them as DGP, the top court then said.

Bhushan and others have alleged the apex court guidelines were being flouted by various state governments. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK