Context

Recently, the Supreme Court of India raised serious concerns over the growing practice among several States of appointing “Acting” or ad hoc Directors General of Police (DGPs) instead of regular police chiefs with a fixed tenure, in violation of its binding directives issued in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006).

The Court observed that this practice undermines merit, transparency, and police autonomy. It also directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to take proactive steps to ensure compliance with its earlier directions.

Supreme Court Observations

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, noted that many States continue to delay forwarding proposals for DGP appointments to the UPSC. This results in ad hoc arrangements and deprives senior and meritorious officers of legitimate opportunities for appointment.

The Court directed the UPSC to formally communicate with States to ensure timely submission of proposals. It further permitted the Commission to approach the Court in cases of non-compliance, warning that accountability would be fixed on erring authorities.

About the Prakash Singh Case and Police Reforms

In the landmark Prakash Singh judgment (2006), the Supreme Court emphasised that the office of the DGP must be insulated from political interference and filled through a transparent, merit-based process. Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court issued the following directives:

• Selection Criteria: States must appoint the DGP from among the three senior-most and most meritorious Indian Police Service (IPS) officers empanelled by the UPSC.
• Minimum Tenure: The appointed DGP must be granted a fixed tenure of at least two years to ensure stability and effectiveness in policing.
• Rejection of Acting DGPs: The concept of “Acting” or ad hoc DGPs was expressly rejected, as temporary appointments were held to defeat the very purpose of police reforms.

Subsequent orders in 2018 and 2019 further clarified procedural requirements, including the obligation of States to forward proposals to the UPSC several months before a vacancy arises, enabling advance preparation of the recommended panel.

About the Appointment Process

To streamline and standardise DGP appointments in accordance with judicial directions, the Centre has introduced a Single Window System for appointing State DGPs. This mechanism aligns with the Prakash Singh judgment and the UPSC’s guidelines (2009), and seeks to minimise delays and procedural bottlenecks.

Appointment Process under the Single Window System

1.     State Proposal:

o    Each State must forward a list of eligible officers to the UPSC at least six months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP.

2.     Eligibility Criteria:

o    Officers must have a minimum of 30 years of service, or hold the rank of police chief (and one rank below), as prescribed for the respective State.

o    Officers with less than six months of service remaining before retirement are not eligible.

3.     Empanelment by UPSC:

o    An UPSC Empanelment Committee selects a panel of three officers (or two in the case of smaller States) based on merit, seniority, service record, and range of experience.

4.     State Selection:

o    The State Government appoints the DGP from among the officers empanelled by the UPSC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations expose a persistent gap between judicial mandates and State-level implementation. The Single Window System, grounded in the Prakash Singh judgment and UPSC guidelines, promotes transparent, merit-based, and accountable appointments. Effective implementation of these norms is essential for strengthening police autonomy, professionalism, and democratic governance.