Form of words:
New Delhi: a day later Appointment On Tuesday, West Bengal’s acting Director General of Police Manoj Malviya, the Mamata Banerjee-led government, moved the Supreme Court demanding “autonomy” of the state while selecting the DGP.
As per the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, the top police post is to be appointed by the state government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
However, in a presentation before the apex court on Wednesday, the West Bengal government said that the UPSC has neither the jurisdiction nor the expertise to appoint the DGP of a state.
The development comes amid the ongoing tussle between the Trinamool government and the UPSC over the appointment of the DGP of West Bengal.
In the last two months, a series of letters exchanged The latter pointed to several discrepancies in the names proposed for the post by the state, between the state government and the UPSC under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Malviya is the senior-most police officer in the list of suggested names.
However, this tussle over the appointment of the state DGP is not new and has seen several judicial interventions by the Supreme Court.
In 2006, the apex court passed the landmark Parkash Singh judgment, which said that the DGP would be appointed by the state government from among the officers empaneled by the UPSC. Twelve years later, in 2018, the SC clarified the decision while maintaining the participation of UPSC in the appointment process.
However, since then, several states have tried to circumvent this requirement through legal and executive orders, asserting that ‘police’ and ‘public order’ are state subjects, so the appointment of a DGP is exclusively for the state. should be in the area.
ThePrint explains the various forms of this controversy.
Prakash Singh Verdict
In 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the Prakash Singh verdict on police reforms, which was passed on a petition aimed at freeing the police from political control, especially with respect to transfers and postings.
Among other things, the decision talked about the selection and minimum tenure of the DGP. It said that the DGP of a state would be selected by the state government from among the three senior most officers empaneled for the post by the UPSC.
UPSC was required to select the candidate on the basis of length of service, service record and extent of experience.
It states that once elected, they must have a tenure of at least two years, irrespective of their retirement age.
However, following this decision, several states passed laws or executive orders to circumvent the empanelment process of UPSC.
state law or executive order appointed The in-house committees formed a panel of senior IPS officers from the state cadre and allowed the state government to choose a DGP from this panel instead of involving UPSC.
In fact, the Supreme Court was told in 2018 that out of 29 states, only five states – Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan – had approached the UPSC for empanelment.
Read also: Allahabad and Uttarakhand HCs flout SC order on ‘coercive action’ more than 300 times in 4 months
2018 Explanation
Senior advocate Harish Salve had filed a petition in 2013 challenging the constitutional validity of such laws and executive orders passed by various states and union territories. He insisted that these dilute the directions passed by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case.
In this petition, a negotiating application – which has been filed seeking relief from the court in the main case already pending – was filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
2006 was the verdict then modified On the MHA application in July 2018, with the direction that all states have to send their proposals to UPSC at least three months before the date of retirement of the existing DGP.
The UPSC then has to prepare a panel of three officers suitable for promotion to the post of DGP as per the directions of the court in the Prakash Singh case.
Thereafter, the state has to immediately appoint one person from the panel prepared by UPSC. The order also clarified that no state shall appoint an acting DGP, adding that there is no such concept.
It was said in the order that if any state government or union territory has any complaint with respect to any direction, it can approach the court for modification of this order.
Following this order, five state governments – West Bengal, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar and Kerala – filed applications for modification of the July 2018 order at the end of that year. However, the Supreme Court rejected these applications in January 2019.
In this order, the court had said that no such amendment was required and also pointed out that the petition filed by Salve is still pending.
It stressed that since Salve’s petition raises similar arguments, “any expression of the opinion of this Court on the arguments raised in Salve’s petition may have the effect of pre-judgment on issues arising”. “.
Read also: Why are there thousands of cases pending against MPs, MLAs in some special courts, bunk hearings?
SC of West Bengal Government. petition in
In the same petition on behalf of Salve, the application of West Bengal has now been filed, which is still pending.
The application claimed that the state governments passed laws or executive orders to set aside the Supreme Court judgment because “such states felt that the said directions … who is responsible for administering, controlling, and supervising the police service in the State to ensure its efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and accountability.
The submission also cites the fact that police and public order fall under the State List of the Constitution, and therefore “all matters of promotion, posting and transfer of IPS officers at all levels within the State shall be exclusively handled by the State Government”. Goes”.
The application further states that “the state should have autonomy in the selection of the DGP” and “any deviation from that principle shall strike at the federal autonomy of the Constitution of India”.
The Government of West Bengal also notes that Article 320 of the Constitution, which deals with the functions of the Public Service Commissions, provides for the work of the UPSC to advise on the principles to be followed in the promotion and transfer of candidates from one service to another. limited to provide. candidates for such appointments
Therefore, it argues that the Commission does not have the power to select officers for a panel as directed by the Supreme Court.
Further, the application states that the UPSC does not have the power to assess the “qualification of officers” and it is the state government which has “the closest opportunity to assess the fitness of officers of that rank who have rendered service to the state”. in the state cadre”.
(Edited by Rachel John)
Read also: How 3 UP brothers arrested for ‘cow slaughter’ were charged with NSA for ‘harassing Hindus’
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay the price for maintaining this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.