The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a clutch of petitions concerning the long-pending issue of police reforms, with a specific focus on the ad-hoc and allegedly arbitrary appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs) by various state governments. The matter has been scheduled for examination after two weeks.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria said it would consider several aspects, including a plea filed by former Uttar Pradesh DGP and police reforms advocate Prakash Singh. Singh has sought the establishment of a collegium-like panel to appoint DGPs, comprising the Chief Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, argued that DGP appointments should follow a model similar to that of the CBI Director selection committee to ensure transparency and integrity in the process. He further alleged rampant corruption in the appointment of police chiefs across several states.
The bench also heard submissions regarding the appointment of Jharkhand DGP Anurag Gupta, with senior advocate Anjana Prakash pointing out that the due process was allegedly bypassed. Gupta was slated to retire on April 30 upon turning 60, as per Central rules, but the Jharkhand government reportedly sought an extension of his tenure by writing to the Centre.
“These are serious matters that will require considerable time and deliberation,” said CJI Gavai, adding that senior advocate Raju Ramachandran would assist the court as amicus curiae. The court directed all parties to provide him with copies of their petitions.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for another petitioner, stressed that the Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 verdict on police reforms has not been effectively implemented. That judgment called for structural reforms in policing, including the separation of investigation from law and order functions, fixed tenures for police officers, and protection from political interference.
Despite subsequent directions, the practice of ad-hoc and interim DGP appointments continues in several states, in violation of the court’s orders. The court had earlier ruled that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), in consultation with state governments, must prepare a shortlist of three eligible senior officers, from which one must be appointed as DGP.
The bench’s decision to revisit the issue comes amid growing concern about the politicisation of police leadership and the erosion of institutional safeguards meant to ensure fair and professional policing.
The matter will come up again after two weeks for further hearing.
