6 months ago
1
The communicative truthful far: Tamil Nadu has recovered itself successful the mediate of a contention implicit the assignment of a regular Director-General of Police/Head of Police Force (DGP/HoPF). For the archetypal clip successful caller years, the State was incapable to name a regular constabulary main successful clip to win the outgoing DGP. G. Venkatraman, a 1994-batch IPS serviceman ranked sixth successful seniority, has been appointed arsenic the in-charge DGP.
What has the authorities said?
Although the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had finalised a sheet of 3 senior DGP-rank officers from the database forwarded by the State, the Tamil Nadu authorities rejected the panel, stating that the shortlisted officers were “not acceptable”. Tamil Nadu Law Minister S. Regupathy issued a connection accusing the Centre and the UPSC of disregarding the State’s views and selecting officers of their choice. Meanwhile, 2 contempt petitions person been filed against Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam for allegedly violating the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
What are the SC guidelines?
In Prakash Singh versus Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court laid down elaborate guidelines for the selection of State DGPs/HoPF. The Court mandated that, “The DGP of the State shall beryllium selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the section who person been empanelled for promotion to that fertile by the UPSC, connected the ground of their magnitude of service, precise bully record, and scope of acquisition for heading the constabulary force.” It further ruled that the selected officer must beryllium granted a minimum tenure of 2 years, irrespective of their day of superannuation. State governments are required to nonstop proposals to the UPSC at slightest 3 months earlier the anticipated vacancy of the DGP, outlining the eligible officers to beryllium considered for the post. However, Tamil Nadu did not travel this timeline. The past incumbent DGP, Shankar Jiwal, retired connected August 30, 2025, which meant the State should person forwarded its list by June. Instead, the connection was submitted to the UPSC only connected August 29, 2025.
What is the contempt plea about?
After advocate Henri Tiphagne moved the apical Court alleging that the State Government had committed contempt by appointing an in-charge DGP, the Chief Secretary informed the Court that a regular assignment was delayed due to the fact that 1 of the eligible officers had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking inclusion of his sanction successful the panel. The CAT dismissed his exertion connected April 30, 2025. While disposing of the contempt plea, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India requested the UPSC to see the substance “expeditiously” and directed that, erstwhile the UPSC’s recommendations were received, the State Government indispensable instrumentality steps “forthwith” to name a DGP.
Following this direction, the UPSC convened an Empanelment Committee Meeting connected September 26, 2025, with the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary. It emerged done reliable sources that the State had withdrawn the integrity certificate of 1 serviceman and expressed its unwillingness to empanel 3 different officers for undisclosed reasons. Despite this, the UPSC shortlisted the senior-most DGP-rank officers, and forwarded its recommendations to the State. However, Tamil Nadu raised objections by penning to the UPSC to explicit its concerns astir the inclusion of officers it deemed “unacceptable” and indicating a penchant for different meeting. The UPSC responded swiftly, stating that its earlier determination would stand.
What is the existent status?
Petitioner Kishore Krishnaswamy filed a lawsuit against the State, alleging wilful contempt for appointing an in-charge DGP and withholding the assignment of a campaigner from the sheet of 3 IPS officers. The apical Court has sought the State’s effect wrong 3 weeks.
