SYLLABUS
GS-2: Functions and Responsibilities of the Union and the States; Separation of Powers between various organs; Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Context: Recently, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has revised the rules for the empanelment of State Director General of Police (DGPs).
More on the News
- The move follows repeated violations of the Supreme Court’s directions in the landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India case by States regarding delays and irregular appointments of DGPs.
- UPSC has clarified that States must adhere strictly to the Supreme Court-mandated timeline for DGP appointments.
- States are required to send proposals at least three months before the incumbent DGP’s retirement, ensuring continuity in leadership.
- The clarification follows the repeated delays by States in forwarding names, and instances of appointing acting or temporary DGPs, contrary to judicial directions.
Key Changes in the Appointment Process
- Mandatory Timelines: States must send proposals 3 months prior to vacancy.
- SC Approval for Delay: Any delay (except exceptional cases like death/resignation) requires leave/clarification from the Supreme Court.
- UPSC’s Limited Discretion: UPSC cannot proceed with empanelment on the basis of a delayed proposal unless such delay has been expressly permitted or condoned by the Supreme Court.
- Strict Empanelment Procedure: UPSC prepares a panel of 3 eligible IPS officers. The state government must appoint one from this panel.
- No Acting DGP: The Supreme Court has again underlined that there is “no concept of an acting DGP” under the law, directing States to stop appointing police chiefs in an ad‑hoc or stop‑gap capacity.
About the Prakash Singh Case (2006)
- The Prakash Singh vs Union of India case is a watershed moment in police reforms. It arose from a PIL seeking systemic police reforms to curb political control over policing and ensure professional autonomy and accountability.
- Directive 1: Separation of Investigation and Law & Order Functions:
- The court recommended separating police functions related to law and order (an executive function) and criminal investigation (a part of the criminal justice system).
- Directive 2: Appointment of DGP:
- Ensure that the DGP is appointed through a transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years.
- State governments must send proposals for DGP appointments to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months before the incumbent’s retirement.
- The UPSC, in consultation with the state government, prepares a list of three eligible police officers. The state government then appoint one of these officers as the DGP.
- Directive 3: Minimum Tenure for Police Officers:
- Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years.
- Directive 4: Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:
- Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police
- Lay down broad policy guidelines and
- Evaluate the performance of the state police
- Directive 5: Set up a Police Establishment Board to:
- Decide transfers, promotions, postings, and other service-related matters for police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of DSP.
- Directive 6: Set up a Police Complaints Authority:
- At the state level, to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of DSP in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody.
- At district levels, to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of DSP in cases of serious misconduct.
- Directive 7: Set up a National Security Commission at Union Level:
- To prepare a panel for the selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years.
Various Committees/Commissions Set up on Police Reforms
- National Police Commission (1977): The NPC was formed under the government of Morarji Desai, which recommended measures to improve the efficiency of the police force and bring professionalism.
- The Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms (1998): Appointed by the Supreme Court to review the implementation of NPC recommendations, the committee recommended the formation of Police Performance and Accountability Commissions in states and the District Complaints Authority.
- The Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms (2000): The committee recommended that the selection of the constable and Sub-inspector must be based on a pre-qualifying screening test.
- Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2003): It recommended the separation of investigation from law and order functions, the enhancement of forensic science capabilities, and the introduction of a system of plea bargaining.
- Mooshahary Committee (2004): It recommended the formation of a Selection Board, chaired by a DIG and assisted by an SP, for the recruitment of police personnel, revision of pay scales and working hours for constables, and improvement of promotional prospects for constables.