SC questions TN over acting DGP appointment, urges UPSC to act 'expeditiously'

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 8) questioned the Tamil Nadu government over appointment of an acting DGP and directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to expeditiously recommend names for making a regular appointment.

The Tamil Nadu government informed the Supreme Court that the names shortlisted for appointment as the regular Director General of Police/Head of Police Force have already been forwarded to the UPSC for consideration.

Also Read: Contempt petition filed in SC against TN over appointment of acting DGP

SC questions TN govt

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a petition seeking contempt action against Tamil Nadu for appointing G Venkatraman as the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP)/Head of Police Force in-charge on August 31.

"Why do you have an acting DGP?" the bench asked Tamil Nadu government.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state, submitted that the DGP could not be appointed as one of the officers filed a proceeding before the CAT praying for inclusion of his name in the panel.

Also Read: Governor can't examine a bill's legislative competence: Bengal govt to SC

Act 'expeditiously'

The petitioner urged the court to put the UPSC and the state on a clock and requested the court to direct the UPSC and the state to complete the process of appointment of regular DGP for Tamil Nadu in a month.

In response, Mukul Rohatgi argued that the UPSC was a constitutional body and knew its responsibilities.

The bench then ordered, "We request the UPSC to consider the matter expeditiously. On the recommendation received from the UPSC, the respondent states shall take steps for appointing a regular DGP."

Also Read: Presidential reference | Setting fixed timelines for Bill assent poses challenges: SC

Contempt of court petition

The contempt petition was filed by lawyer Henri Tiphagne who has contended that the appointment of an ad hoc/in-charge DGP was in violation of 2018 Supreme Court decision in the Prakash Singh case.

The plea submitted that 2018 the judgment required a State to send a proposal in anticipation of vacancy to the DGP post to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent.

“However, the State of Tamil Nadu till date has not sent such proposal to UPSC within the timeframe of three months prior for empanelment,” the petition said.

(With agency inputs)