The central government has sought the modification of the Supreme Court's 2006 directions which says that any person selected to be the DGP of the state police will have a tenure of two years from the date of appointment irrespective of the age of superannuation.
On Monday, Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked how they can modify their 2006 directions, even as Attorney General K.K. Venugopal told the court that some states were violating one of the directions, either by making ad-hoc appointment to the post or by appointment IPS officers who continue to serve beyond their age of retirement at 60 years.
The Supreme Court sought response of the petitioner-in-person and former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh after Venugopal urged the court to modify its 2006 directions.
The bench of Chief Justice Misra, Justice A.M.Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud posted the matter for hearing on April 4, as lawyer Prashant Bhushan opposed the Venugopal's plea saying that the plea for review of the 2006 directions have already been rejected by the court and what was being sought was another attempt for the recall of the order.
He pointed out that the top court order had clearly stated that the Union Public Service Commission will prepare a panel of three senior IPS officers for the states to choose one for appointment as DGP and irrespective of his age, he will continue to serve for two years.
Bhushan cited the instance of a similar appointment of Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fixed term of minimum two years as he told the court about the gross violation of its 2006 directions on police reforms for the last more than 11 years.
As he told the court that they have filed three petitions - in 2007, 2014 and 2015 - seeking initiation of contempt proceedings, amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran told the bench that high courts could be asked to set up a committee to monitor the implementation of 2006 directions on police reforms and could file their reports to the top court.
Readers' Choice
The Bengal Fracture: How BJP Scripts Making Mamata Politically Redundant
FIR lodged against ex-Rera chief Baldi on former CS Gupta’s complaint
L K Atheeq appointed Financial Advisor to Karnataka CM; T G Nath Add CS
Former Himachal Pradesh CS Appointed Chairperson of PSERC
K K Pant gets additional charge of Himachal Chief Secretary
Govt seeks modification of SC order on DGP appointment
By IndianMandarins - 2018-02-20 10:30:37
The central government has sought the modification of the Supreme Court's 2006 directions which says that any person selected to be the DGP of the state police will have a tenure of two years from the date of appointment irrespective of the age of superannuation.
On Monday, Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked how they can modify their 2006 directions, even as Attorney General K.K. Venugopal told the court that some states were violating one of the directions, either by making ad-hoc appointment to the post or by appointment IPS officers who continue to serve beyond their age of retirement at 60 years.
The Supreme Court sought response of the petitioner-in-person and former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh after Venugopal urged the court to modify its 2006 directions.
The bench of Chief Justice Misra, Justice A.M.Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud posted the matter for hearing on April 4, as lawyer Prashant Bhushan opposed the Venugopal's plea saying that the plea for review of the 2006 directions have already been rejected by the court and what was being sought was another attempt for the recall of the order.
He pointed out that the top court order had clearly stated that the Union Public Service Commission will prepare a panel of three senior IPS officers for the states to choose one for appointment as DGP and irrespective of his age, he will continue to serve for two years.
Bhushan cited the instance of a similar appointment of Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fixed term of minimum two years as he told the court about the gross violation of its 2006 directions on police reforms for the last more than 11 years.
As he told the court that they have filed three petitions - in 2007, 2014 and 2015 - seeking initiation of contempt proceedings, amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran told the bench that high courts could be asked to set up a committee to monitor the implementation of 2006 directions on police reforms and could file their reports to the top court.
