[Nagaland DGP Appointment] Court order lowering age limit for DGP appointment not in interest of police service: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that a court order lowering the age limit for the appointment of State Director General of Police (DGP) would not be in the interest of the police service [Prakash Singh v Union of India]..The top Court reasoned that an order to such effect would lead to a situation where officers junior by five years would be appointed as DGP.."This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that a judicial order to relax age of 30 years to 25 years ... It will lead to a situation where officers who are junior by 5 years will be appointed as DGP and it will not be in interest of police service," the Court observed..However, the bench clarified that it would be open to the UPSC and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to decide on whether any age relaxation should be introduced in the future..A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala made the observations while directing the Nagaland State government to issue appointment orders in line with the empanelment list prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). ."We direct the State of Nagaland to pass orders to implement the above direction and appoint the officer who has been empaneled by UPSC for Nagaland DGP appointment," the Court's order stated. With today's order, the appointment of Rupin Sharma as DGP of Nagaland would stand confirmed.Sharma was appointed as DGP earlier this month after T John Longkumer had resigned from the post. Sharma had earlier held this post before Longkumer's appointment..The petition before the Court challenged the extension granted to T John Longkumer..Longkumer was appointed to the post on June 27, 2018 for a three-year term, but was given an extension till August this year. He was recently recommended for a six-month extension, after the Central government approved his inter-cadre deputation for the period beyond his retirement.Longkumer is from the Chhattisgarh cadre of the Indian Police Service..The petitioners moved the present plea claiming that the incumbent DGP Longkumer continuing in office amounted to violation of the top Court's judgment. In this regard, the plea sought implementation of police reforms directed in the Prakash Singh judgment..The Supreme Court had, in October, asked the Nagaland government to prepare a fresh list of eligible IPS officers for appointment to post of DGP. The Court had orally remarked that the incumbent DGP must be allowed to retire in peace rather than be re-appointed. The judges had also taken strong objection to Longkumer sitting in for the official meeting for the empanelment of IPS officers for the post of DGP, since Longkumer was also recommended to the post..In December 2022, the top court had criticised the delay by the Nagaland government and the UPSC in the matter.In the last hearing, CJI Chandrachud noted that despite there being another eligible officer, A Sunil Acharya, the UPSC did not send his name to Nagaland since he had refused.In this regard, the bench had sought the response of the Central government on whether concurrence of an IPS officer, who is on Central government deputation, is necessary before his appointment as DGP in a State. .In a response to the affidavit, the MHA told the Supreme Court that the concurrence of an IPS officer on Central government deputation was not necessary before his appointment as State DGP. Longkumer had eventually resigned from the post leading to Sharma's appointment. .The Court today also observed that the decision in the case of Prakash Singh provides that appointments to the post of DGP must be made from a panel of three names provided by the UPSC. However, this does not imply that the State cannot bypass the same if, in a given case, less than three officers are available for empanelment, the Court clarified..[Read our live-coverage of the hearing below].[Read order]