The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether the Odisha government was aware of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)'s request to question senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath when it included his name in the panel of officers for appointment as Director General of Police (DGP).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana raised the question while hearing a petition against Nath's exclusion from the race due to an ongoing CBI probe into the sub-inspector (SI) recruitment scam.
The State has withdrawn the integrity certificate issued to Nath for consideration for the DGP post in view of the CBI's request and is now sending a fresh list of IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as part of the DGP appointment process.
Today, Justice Bagchi asked whether the State should not have informed the CBI beforehand about the pending CBI probe.
"We are not saying the integrity certificate should be withdrawn. We are not clear on that. But what we are asking is: if the FIR has already been registered, it refers to a certain role and names the person as an accused, then is it not the duty of the State Government to place this before the Commission?" the judge asked.
While giving an example of a police officer accused in an FIR over use of pellet guns against protesters, Justice Bagchi asked,
"Should the UPSC be kept in the dark about this FIR?"
The Bench also sought clarity on the sequence of events surrounding the CBI inquiry into the sub-inspector (SI) recruitment scam.
Justice Bagchi asked whether the Odisha government was aware of the CBI's request to examine Nath when it forwarded his name for consideration.
"If the State of Odisha was already in possession of the fact that such a request is made, and thereafter has forwarded your name, it is one thing. State of Odisha forwarded your name and thereafter the same period requested, it is again another. We want to know that," Justice Bagchi said.
The hearing will continue on Thursday. State Advocate General is expected to respond to the Court's query.
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for Nath, today informed the Court that the CBI case was registered on November 12, 2025 and that Nath was not named as an accused. She added that Odisha government knew of the case when it forwarded Nath's name in May 2026.
Nundy said there was nothing against Nath in the CBI case. They want to speak to him because he is the ex-officio chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board (OPRB), the Court was told.
"Admittedly, my record is outstanding. Nothing has been said about that. There has been no complaint whatsoever against me, not even a whisper. However, as soon as my name is put forward, because I fulfil all the requirements, including my integrity certificate, for the highest post, for the DGP, I am already a DGP, for the next, from Level 16 to Level 17, all this begins to nullify my honour, my integrity and my 32 years of service to this country and to the State," Nundy said.
Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, who represented a petitioner questioning the process followed by Odisha government in the matter, said there was "premeditated collusion" between the Odisha government and the Centre.
He argued that Nath's integrity certificate was withdrawn only because the CBI said he "may be required to be examined".
Chidambaram also informed the Court that temporary ex-cadre posts were subsequently created to facilitate other officers.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that permitting such a process would "make mincemeat" of the Prakash Singh judgment.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for a retired police officer, similarly contended that Level 15 officers were effectively pushed into Level 16 by creating temporary posts, thereby enlarging the zone of consideration.
"Apart from being in violation of the rules, you are trying to justify appointing somebody other than the two people who are eligible to be considered," he said
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran said the exercise "reeks of arbitrariness to artificially bring people within the zone".
He stressed that the object of Prakash Singh judgment was to prevent political favouritism in DGP appointments.
The hearing also witnessed a sharp exchange after the Odisha Advocate General remarked that the amicus was arguing like counsel for the petitioner.
Ramachandran objected strongly, saying that in 50 years of practice he has never been accused of being partisan.
At this, CJI Kant said:
"Sometimes these comments are made so that this Court is deprived of assistance (of the Amicus)."
Meanwhile, the Court today briefly examined the appointment of Jharkhand DGP Tadasha Mishra, the State's first woman police chief. She was appointed as DGP on December 30, 2025, a day before her retirement.
Ramachandran questioned the rule used to overcome the six-month residual tenure requirement.
"You cannot artificially create a period of six months from one day," he submitted.
The bench also questioned the State's selection mechanism.
Referring to the role contemplated for the UPSC under Prakash Singh judgment, the Court observed that under the State's rules, "nothing [was] going to UPSC" and questioned the system where the State effectively determines the composition of the nomination and empanelment committees.
CJI then asked whether doing away with the "dominance of the UPSC" in the State mechanism would conflict with Prakash Singh.
Ramachandran said it would not necessarily violate the letter and spirit of the judgment so long as the selection body had UPSC representation.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand, defended the State's rules and said some leeway was necessary for a small State with few DGP-level officers.
[Read Live Thread]