Context:
Tamil Nadu is witnessing a constitutional and administrative controversy over the appointment of a regular Director-General of Police (DGP). The issue has escalated into a contempt plea before the Supreme Court, following allegations that the State Government violated binding SC guidelines by rejecting a UPSC-empanelled panel and appointing an in-charge DGP instead.
Key Highlights:
Case Facts / Administrative Developments:
-
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) finalised a panel of three senior DGP-rank IPS officers for selection as DGP.
-
The Tamil Nadu government rejected the panel, citing objections including withdrawal of an integrity certificate.
-
G. Venkatraman (1994-batch IPS) was appointed as in-charge DGP.
-
Contempt petitions were filed against Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam for alleged non-compliance with SC directions.
Legal & Procedural Background:
-
In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court mandated:
-
The State must select the DGP from three seniormost officers empanelled by the UPSC.
-
Selection to be based on length of service, service record, and experience.
-
The DGP must be given a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of superannuation date.
-
Proposals must be sent to UPSC at least three months before the vacancy arises.
-
Timeline & Institutional Issues:
-
The incumbent DGP Shankar Jiwal retired on August 30, 2025.
-
Tamil Nadu sent its proposal to the UPSC only on August 29, 2025, instead of June, violating timelines.
-
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed an application by an eligible officer on April 30, 2025, contributing to delay.
-
The UPSC’s Empanelment Committee Meeting (September 26, 2025) saw the State expressing unwillingness to empanel certain officers.
Judicial Status:
-
The Supreme Court has sought the State’s response within three weeks, questioning the legality of appointing an in-charge DGP and withholding appointment from the UPSC panel.
Relevant Prelims Points:
-
Director-General of Police (DGP): Highest-ranking police officer in a State, responsible for leadership and administration of the police force.
-
UPSC: Constitutional body under Article 315, responsible for recruitment and empanelment of civil servants.
-
Prakash Singh Case (2006): Landmark judgment on police reforms.
-
Contempt of Court: Willful disobedience of court orders, punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Benefits, Challenges & Impact:
-
Benefits of SC guidelines: Insulation of police leadership from political interference, stability in policing.
-
Challenges: Delays by States, selective compliance, Centre–State friction.
-
Impact: Undermines police autonomy, weakens rule of law, invites judicial intervention.
Relevant Mains Points:
-
Polity & Governance:
-
Police reforms as part of democratic accountability and rule of law.
-
Tension between State executive discretion and constitutional mandates.
-
-
Federal Dimension:
-
Role of a central body (UPSC) in State policing appointments.
-
-
Judicial Oversight:
-
Courts enforcing structural reforms due to executive inaction.
-
Way Forward:
-
Strict adherence to SC timelines and procedures.
-
Institutionalise transparent and time-bound selection processes.
-
Reduce reliance on in-charge appointments, which dilute accountability.
-
Implement broader police reforms recommended by the SC and expert committees.
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
-
GS 2: Polity & Governance – police reforms, Centre–State relations, role of judiciary
-
GS Prelims: DGP appointment process, UPSC role, contempt of court