<p class="title">The Supreme Court’s directive on appointment of Director General of Police in the states is intended to reduce the scope for personal and political favouritism in the selection of the top police officer. The court has barred the appointment of ‘acting’ DGPs “as there is no concept of an acting DGP.” It has laid down a selection procedure. It has given a role to the UPSC in the appointment. The UPSC is to shortlist three candidates from the list of eligible officers forwarded to it by the state government. The government is to them choose its DGP from among the three. The names have to be sent to the UPSC three months before the incumbent DGP retires and, once appointed, the new DGP should have a tenure of two years irrespective of his or her date of retirement. States can approach the court for a relaxation of the procedure in certain exigencies, but the court wants the norm laid down by it to be generally adhered to. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Politicisation is a major problem with police forces all over the country. Governments and parties want to keep the police loyal to themselves and to make them do their bidding. This is mostly done through appointments and transfers and postings. In a disciplined and command-driven force, control of the top post is crucial, and that is why governments often try to pick their favourites for the position. This is what the court order seeks to discourage. In 2006, the court had issued some guidelines on police reforms. These related to the appointment of the DGP also, but few states have complied with the guidelines. The latest order was issued by the court in response to a petition filed by the central government seeking some changes in the guidelines. </p>.<p class="bodytext">But, while the order seeks to curb the misuse of their powers by state governments, by giving a role to the UPSC in the selection of DGPs, it also raises issues relating to the rights of states and the right selection procedure. The propriety of the court prescribing such a detailed selection procedure for what is clearly in the executive’s domain is bound to be questioned. More importantly, giving the UPSC a role violates the federal division of roles, in which law and order and police appointments are state matters. While the Supreme Court is right to insist on timely and well-considered, rather than ad hoc, appointment of top police officers as well as on wider police reforms, an issue on which states have ignored the court’s directives, it must reconsider and withdraw the role it has given to the UPSC in the appointment of the DGP.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court’s directive on appointment of Director General of Police in the states is intended to reduce the scope for personal and political favouritism in the selection of the top police officer. The court has barred the appointment of ‘acting’ DGPs “as there is no concept of an acting DGP.” It has laid down a selection procedure. It has given a role to the UPSC in the appointment. The UPSC is to shortlist three candidates from the list of eligible officers forwarded to it by the state government. The government is to them choose its DGP from among the three. The names have to be sent to the UPSC three months before the incumbent DGP retires and, once appointed, the new DGP should have a tenure of two years irrespective of his or her date of retirement. States can approach the court for a relaxation of the procedure in certain exigencies, but the court wants the norm laid down by it to be generally adhered to. </p>.<p class="bodytext">Politicisation is a major problem with police forces all over the country. Governments and parties want to keep the police loyal to themselves and to make them do their bidding. This is mostly done through appointments and transfers and postings. In a disciplined and command-driven force, control of the top post is crucial, and that is why governments often try to pick their favourites for the position. This is what the court order seeks to discourage. In 2006, the court had issued some guidelines on police reforms. These related to the appointment of the DGP also, but few states have complied with the guidelines. The latest order was issued by the court in response to a petition filed by the central government seeking some changes in the guidelines. </p>.<p class="bodytext">But, while the order seeks to curb the misuse of their powers by state governments, by giving a role to the UPSC in the selection of DGPs, it also raises issues relating to the rights of states and the right selection procedure. The propriety of the court prescribing such a detailed selection procedure for what is clearly in the executive’s domain is bound to be questioned. More importantly, giving the UPSC a role violates the federal division of roles, in which law and order and police appointments are state matters. While the Supreme Court is right to insist on timely and well-considered, rather than ad hoc, appointment of top police officers as well as on wider police reforms, an issue on which states have ignored the court’s directives, it must reconsider and withdraw the role it has given to the UPSC in the appointment of the DGP.</p>