Supreme Court directs UPSC to expedite recommendations for TN DGP appointment

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to expeditiously send its recommendations for the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) of Tamil Nadu [Henri Tiphagne vs. The State of Tamil Nadu]. .The Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar directed the State to immediately proceed with the appointment of a regular DGP once the recommendations from the UPSC are received. .The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by human rights lawyer Henri Tiphagne, alleging that Tamil Nadu had not complied with the Court’s directions on police reforms and continues to have only an acting DGP instead of a regular appointee.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, explained that the delay was caused by litigation initiated by one of the IPS officers. That officer had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking inclusion of his name in the panel for consideration. After his plea was dismissed by the Tribunal and his review rejected on April 30, he approached the Supreme Court. His petition before the top court was dismissed on August 22 paving the way for the appointment process to resume. Taking note of this background, the Court requested the UPSC to finalise its recommendations quickly and recorded that the State must act on them without delay..The issue of regular appointments of DGPs is governed by the Supreme Court’s rulings in Prakash Singh v. Union of India. In 2018, while dealing with complaints about States continuing to place acting officers in charge, the Court had directed all States to forward proposals to the UPSC at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent. The UPSC was required to prepare a panel of officers for the post, and the States were to choose from that list. The Court had also stressed that the concept of an “acting DGP” was impermissible, and that appointments should ensure stability of tenure consistent with merit and seniority..In the present matter, the Court refrained from expressing any view on the contempt plea itself but its order reiterated the need for strict adherence to the directions flowing from Prakash Singh and subsequent clarifications.