Controversy over DGP Appointment in Punjab

Context: Punjab Assembly passed the Punjab Police Amendment Bill, 2023 which seeks to do away with Supreme Court mandated procedure to appoint the Director General of Police. Under the Amended Act, Punjab government has created a parallel mechanism where a panel of three officers will be selected by a 7 member committee headed by retired chief justice or retired judge from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 

Supreme Court mandated procedure for DGP Appointment

• Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Judgement, 2006 directed states under Article 142 of the Constitution of India laid down institutional reforms for the police. 
• The intent of the Supreme Court was that the process of appointment of DGP should be purely based on merit and would insulate the office from all kinds of influences and pressures. 

The procedure for appointment of DGP laid down in the judgement is:

• Selection from a pool of officers by UPSC (non-political body): Director General of Police of State to be selected by State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Police Department who have been empanelled for promotion by the UPSC. 
• UPSC will empanel the three seniormost officers on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police.
• Security of tenure: The selected DGP should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation/retirement.
• Removal of DGP: Incumbent DGP may be removed by the State Government in consultation with State Security Commission consequent upon any action of the incumbent DGP against the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption or if he is incapacitated from discharging his duties.

Later in 2018, Supreme Court clarified on the procedure laid down by Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Judgement by making the following changes:

• All States to send their proposals in anticipation of vacancies to the office of DGP to the UPSC, at least three months in advance from the date of retirement of incumbent to the post of DGP.
• States cannot appoint any person as an acting DGP.
• UPSC should empanel persons for the post of DGP considering they have close two years of service remaining which will make candidates continue in the office for a limited period after their superannuation. 
• Any legislation/rule framed by States or Central Government running counter to the direction shall remain in abeyance to the extent. 
• Later in 2019, the Supreme Court clarified that the maximum residual tenure of an officer appointed as DGP after his superannuation should be six months. 

Rationale for the changes introduced by Supreme Court in 2018

These changes were made due to the following practices pursued by States 

1. States started appointing acting director general of police to bypass the need for appointing candidates nominated by UPSC.
2. Candidates were appointed as DGP on the last date of retirement. This made them continue on the office of DGP despite approx two years of superannuation. 

Concerns of the States with above Procedure

1. States have been demanding autonomy while selecting DGP of the Police since Police and Public order are state subjects under Schedule VII of the constitution. 
2. All matters of promotion, posting and transfer of IPS officers at all levels within the State should be handled exclusively by the State government.  
3. States content that UPSC neither has jurisdiction nor expertise to appoint the DGP of the State. 
4. Under Article 320 of the Constitution, UPSC can only lay down principles for promotion and transfers and suitability of candidates for such appointments. However, under the Constitution, UPSC does not have the power to select or empanel officers. 
5. UPSC while empanelling officers for appointment to the post of DGP considers minimum residual tenure of two years. Thus, the process overlooks many suitable and eligible officers.