What is the Himachal News Editorial?

 

• • The recent appointment of IPS officer Atul Verma as the new Director General of Police (DGP) of Himachal Pradesh has reignited the crucial discussion on the selection process and role of the DGP in Indian state policing. This editorial will analyze this development through the lens of HPAS’s focus on Indian Polity and Governance.

 

DGP Appointment Process: Balancing Merit and Seniority

 

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Prakash Singh vs Union of India established guidelines for selecting state DGPs. Here’s a breakdown:

 

• • State Nominations: States submit a list of eligible IPS officers to the UPSC at least six months before the incumbent DGP retires. These officers must hold the rank of ADG or the rank stipulated for the state’s DGP, and have at least 30 years of service with clear service records, performance appraisals, and vigilance clearance.
• • UPSC Empanelment Committee: A committee led by the UPSC Chairman, including the Union Home Secretary, state Chief Secretary, state DGP, and the head of a central police force, evaluates the nominations.
• • They select a panel of three (or two for smaller states) officers based on merit, considering seniority, service record, and range of experience.
• • The UPSC cannot include officers with less than six months to retirement.
• • State Selection: The state government chooses a DGP from the UPSC panel. Officers’ consent isn’t required, and the Centre can withhold an officer’s transfer.

 

Police Reforms after Prakash Singh Case 2006:

 

Background of Prakash Singh Case 2006

 

• • The Prakash Singh case of 2006 wasn’t just about the appointment of DGPs, but a landmark judgement aimed at broader police reforms in India. Here’s a breakdown of the background:
  • Initiator: Prakash Singh, a retired Director General of Police (DGP) himself, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court in 1996.

 

The Problem: The PIL addressed concerns about deep-rooted issues within the Indian police system, including:

 

• • Politicization: Police forces were susceptible to political influence, particularly regarding transfers, postings, and promotions. This could compromise investigations and overall effectiveness.
  • Lack of Accountability: A weak accountability system meant officers faced limited consequences for misconduct or inefficiency.
  • Systemic Weaknesses: Inadequate training, outdated practices, and resource limitations hampered police performance.
  • Desired Outcome: Prakash Singh sought reforms to create a more professional, independent, and accountable police force.

 

The Supreme Court’s 2006 verdict, heavily influenced by Singh’s petition, became a crucial step in that direction. It laid out specific directives focusing on the DGP selection process as a key element in achieving those reforms.

 

The 2006 Prakash Singh Case:

 

In order to implement police reforms, the Supreme Court issued seven instructions in the Prakash Singh Case of 2006.

By approving these orders, the Court documented the structural flaws, lack of accountability procedures, and pervasive politicisation that have led to subpar overall performance and fueled the public’s current discontent with police.The instructions are as follows:

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.
  • Make that the DGP is appointed through an open, merit-based process and that they are given a minimum two-year term.
  • Make sure that a minimum term of two years is given to other police officers performing operational duties, such as Superintendents of Police overseeing a district and Station House Officers managing a police station.
  • Keep the police’s investigative and law-and-order duties apart.
  • Form a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to deliberate on topics pertaining to the posts, transfers, promotions, and other service-related decisions for police officers ranking below the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and to recommend postings and transfers for officers ranking above the DSP.

 

• In cases of serious misconduct, such as custodial death, grievous harm, or rape in police custody, establish a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the state level to investigate public complaints against police officers and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, establish PCAs at the district levels to investigate public complaints against police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
• Establish a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to create a panel that will be used to choose and assign Chiefs of Central Police Organisations (CPOs) to positions that need a minimum of two years of service.

 

Subsequent to the Prakash Singh Judgement in 2018, the Supreme Court clarified the approach by implementing the following modifications:

 

• • At least three months prior to the incumbent’s retirement from the position of DGP, all states are required to submit their proposals to the UPSC in anticipation of openings in the DGP office.
  • No individual may be appointed by a state as an acting DGP.
  • Given that they have nearly two years of service left, UPSC should appoint applicants for the DGP position. This will allow them to remain in the position for a restricted amount of time after they superannuate.
  • Any laws or regulations created by the federal government or the states that conflict with the directive will be suspended to the degree necessary.

 

The Supreme Court made it clear later in 2019 that an officer appointed as DGP following superannuation should have a maximum residual tenure of six months.

 

Justification for the modifications the Supreme Court made in 2018

 

These modifications were brought about by the following actions that States

 

• • In order to avoid selecting UPSC-nominated candidates, states began designating acting director generals of police.
  • The DGP positions were filled by candidates on the final retirement date. This forced them to stay in the DGP position despite having been superannuated for about two years.

 

Current Status:

 

The current status of the Supreme Court mandated procedure for DGP appointment is a bit complex, with some ongoing debate:

 

Main Points of the Procedure:

 

• • Selection by UPSC: States must send proposals for DGP vacancies to the UPSC at least three months beforehand. The UPSC then shortlists the three senior-most eligible officers for the state government to choose from.
  • Focus on Merit: The UPSC selection prioritizes merit, considering factors like seniority, a strong track record, and relevant experience.
  • Security of Tenure: DGPs have a minimum two-year tenure, irrespective of their retirement date, to ensure stability and long-term planning.
  • Limited Post-Retirement Tenures: Since 2019, any extension granted to a DGP after superannuation cannot exceed six months.

 

Challenges and Debate:

 

• • State Autonomy vs. Merit-Based Selection: Some states argue that police and public order fall under their jurisdiction and they should have more control over DGP selection. They question the UPSC’s expertise.
  • Punjab Bill (2023): As an example of this tension, the state of Punjab recently passed a bill aiming to bypass the UPSC process and create a state-level committee for DGP selection. This bill awaits approval by the governor and may face legal challenges.

 

Overall:

 

• • The Supreme Court’s directives remain the law of the land, but there’s ongoing debate about the balance between state autonomy and a merit-based, non-political selection process. The Punjab bill highlights the potential for further legal battles and potential revisions to the current system.

 

Concerns of the States with above Procedure

 

States’ concerns with the above procedure

 

• • Since public order and police are considered state matters under Schedule VII of the constitution, states have been demanding autonomy when choosing the DGP of the Police.
  • The State government should be the exclusive entity in charge of all issues pertaining to the posting, promotion, and transfer of IPS officials within the State at all levels.
  • States argue that UPSC lacks the authority and knowledge to designate the DGP for their state.
  • The UPSC is only permitted by Article 320 of the Constitution to establish guidelines for transfers, promotions, and the eligibility of applicants for certain positions. Nevertheless, UPSC is not authorised by the Constitution to choose or appoint officers.

 

Key Issues and Supreme Court Directions:

 

• • Interim Status: The practice of appointing DGPs in an “acting” capacity violates the SC order, which mandates a permanent appointment. (The issue of “interim status” for DGP appointments arises when an officer is appointed to the position but not confirmed permanently. )
  • Seniority vs. Merit: Disputes arise when junior officers are chosen over seniors. The UPSC prioritizes merit in such cases.
    Tenure Extension: Extending a DGP’s tenure beyond two years deviates from the SC’s guidelines.
  • State-Centre Friction: The Centre’s power to block officers’ transfers can create friction with states.

 

Moving Forward:

 

Both states and the UPSC must adhere to the Prakash Singh Judgement and subsequent orders. This ensures:

 

• • No Acting DGPs: All appointments must be permanent.
  • Merit-Based Selection: The UPSC prioritizes merit while considering seniority.
  • Following these guidelines will improve transparency and ensure qualified leadership for state police forces.

 

• • 

Mains Questions:

 

Model Answer:

 

The Supreme Court’s directives in the Prakash Singh Judgement (2006) aimed to depoliticize and professionalize the police force by reforming the DGP selection process. Here’s an analysis of its merits and limitations:

Merits:

• • Focus on Merit: UPSC selection prioritizes seniority, a strong track record, and relevant experience, promoting objectivity over political considerations.
  • Security of Tenure: A minimum two-year tenure allows DGPs to implement long-term strategies without fear of political influence.
  • Improved Police Leadership: Meritocratic selection can lead to better-qualified and more effective leadership within the police force.

Limitations:

• • State Autonomy Concerns: Some states argue that police and public order are state subjects, and they should have more control over DGP selection.
  • Limited UPSC Expertise: States question the UPSC’s knowledge of specific state-level policing issues when selecting DGPs.
  • Potential for Bypass: Instances like the recent Punjab Bill (2023) highlight attempts by states to circumvent the UPSC process.

 

 

Model Answer:

 

The DGP plays a pivotal role in maintaining law and order within a state. Their responsibilities include:

• • Leading the Police Force: The DGP sets the strategic direction for the police, overseeing operations, resource allocation, and training.
  • Ensuring Public Order: The DGP is responsible for managing critical situations like riots, protests, and major crimes.
  • Liaison with State Government: The DGP acts as a bridge between the police force and the state government, ensuring effective communication and policy implementation.

Measures for Enhanced Police Reforms:

• • Community Policing: Strengthening community engagement builds trust and improves police responsiveness to local needs.
  • Modernization: Investment in technology, infrastructure, and training equips the police for contemporary challenges.
  • Improved Investigation Techniques: Enhancing forensic capabilities and scientific investigation methods can lead to more effective crime-solving.
  • Police Accountability Mechanisms: Robust mechanisms for investigating misconduct and ensuring police accountability are essential for public trust.

By strengthening the DGP selection process and implementing comprehensive police reforms, India can create a more professional, accountable, and effective police force that better serves the needs of its citizens.

 

Remember: These are just sample answers. It’s important to further research and refine your responses based on your own understanding and perspective. Read entire HPAS Current Affairs.