The Tripura government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it was adhering to the 2006 verdict on police reforms and had initiated the process of appointing a regular director general of police (DGP) on March 7.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by NGO MONDRA, through its president Bipin Chandra Kalai. The plea challenged the state government’s alleged failure to comply with court-mandated procedures in appointing the state’s police chief.
Background: The Prakash Singh Judgment and Its Impact
The case stems from the landmark 2006 Prakash Singh judgment, where the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to reform police administration across India. The ruling aimed to insulate law enforcement from political influence and enhance transparency in key appointments. It mandated states to:
- Separate Law and Order from Investigation – Ensuring that officers handling criminal investigations are not burdened with routine policing duties.
- Consult the UPSC for DGP Appointments – States were directed to seek recommendations from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for selecting the top police officer.
- Merit-Based Selection – The DGP should be appointed from a list of three senior IPS officers, shortlisted by the UPSC from eligible candidates provided by the state.
- Timely Initiation of Selection Process – The selection process must begin well in advance before the incumbent DGP’s retirement to avoid ad-hoc appointments.
Despite these directives, various states, including Tripura, have faced scrutiny over non-compliance with these guidelines, leading to multiple legal challenges.
Hearing Before the Supreme Court
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing MONDRA, argued that the Tripura government had failed to initiate the selection process for a new DGP as per the Supreme Court’s ruling. The plea contended that the state neither formed a panel of eligible officers nor sought UPSC’s recommendations, thus violating judicial directives.
However, the Tripura government, through its counsel, refuted these allegations and submitted a confidential letter to the bench in a sealed cover. The state’s representative asserted that the appointment process had begun on March 7 and that the government had been following the 2006 directives and subsequent judicial orders.
The government also clarified that the current DGP, Amitabh Ranjan, who took charge on July 28, 2022, is set to retire on May 31, 2025. The state assured the court that the appointment of his successor would be completed within the stipulated time.
The state government said, “Learned counsel for the respondent (Tripura) has handed over a confidential letter, which will be kept in a sealed cover by the registry of this court. Accordingly, we are not issuing notice in the present petition. However, if there is a violation, the petitioner may file applications for the revival,” the bench said.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench recorded the state government’s submission and decided not to issue a notice at this stage. “Learned counsel for the respondent (Tripura) has handed over a confidential letter, which will be kept in a sealed cover by the registry of this court. Accordingly, we are not issuing notice in the present petition. However, if there is a violation, the petitioner may file applications for revival,” the bench stated.
The court also noted that any appointment outside the established judicial process would “undermine the integrity of the selection process and open the door to political interference.”
Broader Implications
The case comes at a time when the Supreme Court has been actively reviewing states’ adherence to its 2006 verdict on police reforms. On March 25, the top court announced that it would hear in May a batch of petitions seeking the enforcement of its guidelines.
As the debate over police reforms continues, the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Tripura government’s compliance may serve as a precedent for ensuring greater accountability in police appointments nationwide.
