The Telangana High Court on Tuesday asked the State government to
clarify the procedure it had adopted in appointing senior IPS officer M.
Mahender Reddy as Director General of Police of the State. Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging Reddy’s
appointment as DGP through a special Act, a division bench comprising Chief
Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice A. Rajashekar Reddy directed
the government to file an affidavit on the matter within four weeks. The petitioner Vijay Gopal, a private employee from Tarnaka, requested
the court to declare the Telangana Police (Selection and Appointment of DGP
(HoPF) Act-2018 illegal and strike it down. He claimed the legislation was in
violation of the Supreme Court directions in Prakash Singh and others case with
regard to the appointment of DGP of a State. He urged the bench to call for
records relating to the appointment of the State police chief for its perusal. Seeking to quash Reddy’s appointment as DGP, the petitioner also
appealed to the court to enforce all the mandatory directions issued by the
apex court in Prakash Singh case like setting up police establishment board and
police complaint authority. The petitioner’s counsel Yakarapu Sheelu presented to the court that the
Telangana government appointed Reddy as the acting DGP on November 12, 2017.
Subsequently, he was made the DGP (head of police force) on March 30, 2018,
through the special Act. This was contrary to section three and sub-sections 1
and 2 of the Principal Act, he argued. The lawyer told the court that the apex court orders in Prakash Singh
case make it clear that government should appoint the DGP from amongst three
senior most police officers of the department empanelled by the Union Public
Service Commission. Telangana government had given a go by of this procedure,
the lawyer contended.
Readers' Choice
Gujarat: Around a dozen IPS officers reshuffled
ED arrests Anil Tuteja in Chhattisgarh liquor scam case
IPS officer writes to “Sarkar” seeking “Car” at par; flags a discriminatory regime
Gujarat: A major reshuffle of IPS enacted
Ex IAS officer joins BJP; to be fielded against Harsimrat Badal
DGP appointment: Telangana gets into trouble
By IndianMandarins - 2019-03-20 11:14:37
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday asked the State government to
clarify the procedure it had adopted in appointing senior IPS officer M.
Mahender Reddy as Director General of Police of the State.
Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging Reddy’s appointment as DGP through a special Act, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice A. Rajashekar Reddy directed the government to file an affidavit on the matter within four weeks.
The petitioner Vijay Gopal, a private employee from Tarnaka, requested the court to declare the Telangana Police (Selection and Appointment of DGP (HoPF) Act-2018 illegal and strike it down. He claimed the legislation was in violation of the Supreme Court directions in Prakash Singh and others case with regard to the appointment of DGP of a State. He urged the bench to call for records relating to the appointment of the State police chief for its perusal.
Seeking to quash Reddy’s appointment as DGP, the petitioner also appealed to the court to enforce all the mandatory directions issued by the apex court in Prakash Singh case like setting up police establishment board and police complaint authority.
The petitioner’s counsel Yakarapu Sheelu presented to the court that the Telangana government appointed Reddy as the acting DGP on November 12, 2017. Subsequently, he was made the DGP (head of police force) on March 30, 2018, through the special Act. This was contrary to section three and sub-sections 1 and 2 of the Principal Act, he argued.
The lawyer told the court that the apex court orders in Prakash Singh case make it clear that government should appoint the DGP from amongst three senior most police officers of the department empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission. Telangana government had given a go by of this procedure, the lawyer contended.
