The 2006 Prakash Singh case stands as a pivotal Supreme Court ruling aimed at reforming police operations in India. The ruling sought to minimize political interference in police appointments by establishing clear guidelines for selecting state Directors General of Police (DGP). Key mandates included ensuring a minimum tenure of two years for appointed DGPs and engaging the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the selection process.
In light of contempt notices issued by the Supreme Court to eight states, including Uttar Pradesh, the state moved to establish new DGP selection rules. This led to the introduction of the ‘Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh Selection and Appointment Rules, 2024’, aiming to streamline the selection process and mitigate potential legal conflicts.
While Uttar Pradesh's revised rules somewhat align with the Supreme Court's directives, they deviate significantly by removing the requirement to send a list of candidates to the UPSC. This shift grants the state greater authority over DGP appointments, contrasting the original intention of the Prakash Singh ruling.
Critics have expressed concerns that Uttar Pradesh's rules infringe upon the principles established by the Supreme Court. By bypassing the UPSC's mandated role, they argue that the new regulations undermine the spirit of judicial oversight in police appointments. Furthermore, the reliance on the archaic Indian Police Act of 1861, instead of a contemporary state Police Act, raises additional legal questions.
Judgments from 2018 and 2019 emphasized the prohibition of appointing acting or temporary DGPs, underscoring the necessity for a minimum two-year tenure and a service continuity mandate of six months. The new rules from UP could face challenges for not fully complying with these judicial directives.
Under the guidelines set by the Supreme Court, states are required to submit a list of eligible senior officers to the UPSC, which subsequently shortlists three candidates for the DGP position. This process is designed to enhance transparency and reduce political favoritism.
Some officials argue against the UPSC-led selection process, suggesting that merely relying on seniority and past performance may not yield the best candidate. They advocate for a more holistic evaluation approach, such as the Centre’s “360-degree evaluation” model, which includes feedback from colleagues and subordinates.
Compared to other states that follow their own Police Acts, many adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines or utilize committees similar to those outlined in the Bureau of Police Research and Development’s Model Police Act, ensuring compliance with SC directives by selecting from a pool of the five most senior officers.
The introduction of UP's new rules reflects the ongoing struggle between state autonomy and adherence to Supreme Court mandates regarding police reforms. While Uttar Pradesh aims to refine its appointment procedures, there are fears that this could encourage other states to neglect SC guidelines, thus weakening the overall impact of necessary police reforms. As articulated, “True reform is achieved not by circumventing the law, but by upholding it in spirit and practice.”
Kutos : AI Assistant!
