Swaraat / N S Padmanabhan
It is said that Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion, and this is the very premise on which the Supreme Court has framed guidelines regarding the appointment of the Director General of Police.
Prakash Singh Case
Sri Prakash Singh filed a case in the Supreme Court to bring fairness to the appointment of DGPs in states.
Case For and Against Transfers
• Political interference in the appointment and transfer of DGPs
• Sudden transfer of DGPs at the whims and fancies of political bosses, Overlooking seniority in appointments
• Appointing ineligible officersThe above points were the basic arguments against the states while appointing DGPs
Supreme Court Norms and Directives
In the Prakash Singh case judgment (2006), the Supreme Court laid down these norms to be followed by state governments when appointing DGPs:
A) The state government should send a list of eligible officers at least three months before the retirement date of the current DGP to the Centre.This is to obtain clearance from the Home Ministry, vigilance authorities, and vetting by the UPSC.Three eligible names are sent out of the list to the state by the Centre.
B) They should be in the ADGP rank to ensure lower-ranked officers are not given the higher post.
C) Their tenure should be two years, irrespective of their retirement age.This is to ensure that they are not transferred in between by political leaders.
It was also suggested that states should legislate laws to this effect. Maharashtra did pass the law, but the Chief Minister retained the discretionary power to transfer the DGP in certain exigencies.
Another directive was that there should be no pending criminal or civil case against the acting DGP. However, acting DGPs were appointed in Uttar Pradesh and other states, though the Supreme Court specified that a full-time DGP should head the police force.
The Curious Case of Tamil Nadu
Sri Shankar Jiwal, who was DGP, retired on August 31, 2025. His date of retirement was neither a secret nor was it difficult to ascertain. Despite this, the Tamil Nadu government did not send the list well before to the Centre. Instead, Sri Venkatraman was chosen as acting DGP, even though he was ninth in the seniority list. It is even more surprising that the state government cited the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directive, claiming they were following requisite procedures.
The appointment of an acting DGP and the delay in sending the eligible list to UPSC speak volumes about the intent.
Arguments by States
State governments opine that this is a state subject and the state should have unfettered powers in appointments.The Supreme Court aims at preventing political interference and ensuring fixed tenure for stability. Several contempt cases are pending in the Supreme Court against states.
On September 8th, one such case is coming up in the Madras High Court. It is said that, due to various administrative reasons, the Tamil Nadu government is not able to strictly follow the SC directive.The impending elections next year have also triggered speculation in this regard.
It still remains a mystery why the TN government did not send the list earlier and why an acting DGP was preferred in contrast to SC directives. However, Tamil Nadu is not alone in this matter.Only time will unravel this as facts unfold in the days to come.