Supreme Court extended the tenure of Director Generals of Police (DGPs) in Punjab and Haryana. (Source: File photo) Supreme Court extended the tenure of Director Generals of Police (DGPs) in Punjab and Haryana. (Source: File photo)

EVEN AS the Supreme Court Wednesday extended the tenure of Director Generals of Police (DGPs) in Punjab and Haryana until January 31 as an interim arrangement, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has come in support of various states who are seeking modification of the July order by which the apex court restrained state governments from appointing the DGPs on their own.

In July, the Supreme Court in July ordered the state governments in India to send proposals for filing the post of DGPs in advance to the UPSC, at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent DGP. The court also directed the UPSC to prepare a panel as per the previous apex court guidelines and made it mandatory on the state governments to appoint only one of the persons from the panel prepared by the UPSC.

Stating that the selection or appointment to the post of DGP in a state is not a duty entrusted to the UPSC by any provision in the constitution, the union ministry in a written response through its Under Secretary Mukesh Sawhney said that the involvement of the UPSC would have “ramifications for the federal structure of our Constitution.”

“The involvement of the UPSC in the process of selection and appointment to the post of Director General of Police in any State without the requirements of Article 315(4) being satisfied, would run counter to this express provision and scheme of the Constitution,” the government has said in response to the application moved by West Bengal government. The union government affidavit is dated December 5, 2018.

The state governments of Punjab, Haryana and Bihar have filed similar applications for modification of the order passed by apex court on July 03. The union ministry has further informed the court that the Himachal Pradesh has also enacted a separate Act for selection of the DGP on the recommendation of a three member Screening Committee headed by Chief Secretary of the State.

Reiterating that it “supports the stand” in application for modification of the direction regarding empanelment by the UPSC, the union ministry in its counter affidavit has further said that the Court may consider directing each of the States to set up an ‘Empanelment Committee’ for the purpose of selecting the DGP.

On Wednesday before the bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, Punjab and Haryana governments sought permission to appoint the DGPs in accordance with the Punjab Police Act and Haryana Police Act.

Punjab Advocate General, Atul Nanda, who appeared before the Supreme Court alongwith Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, told The Indian Express, “Our contention is that the procedure, ordered to be followed by the Court, for appointment of a DGP will lead to imbalance in the federal structure and there was no necessity to pass such an order on July 3.”

The Court in the order on Wednesday said that objections are required to be filed by the petitioner to the prayers made in the applications filed by the states and therefore it is adjourning the matter to January 8 for the next hearing. Meanwhile, the Court said, “The present arrangement with regard to the post of Director General of Police may be continued in the aforesaid two States until January 31, 2019. “

The DGPs of Punjab and Haryana are already on extension for the past three months and were set to retire on December 31, 2018. The governments Wednesday pleaded that in the meantime they be allowed to continue with the existing arrangement.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Mumbai News, download Indian Express App.