The Tripura government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it is adhering to the apex court’s 2006 guidelines on police reforms concerning the appointment of a director general of police (DGP). This declaration was made during a hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO MONDRA, which had accused the state of failing to follow the mandated procedures for the DGP’s appointment.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, reviewed the state’s compliance with the landmark 2006 Prakash Singh case verdict, which recommended several reforms in police administration, including a separation of investigative and law enforcement functions and involving the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) in the appointment process for DGPs. According to the verdict, such appointments should be made well before the incumbent’s retirement and must be based on seniority, experience, and merit, from a list of three senior IPS officers prepared by the UPSC.
During the proceedings, the state government’s counsel presented a letter in a sealed cover to the bench, confirming that the process for appointing a new DGP was initiated on March 7. The government emphasized its ongoing commitment to the 2006 directives and subsequent judgments. The current DGP, Amitabh Ranjan, who took charge on July 28, 2022, is set to retire on May 31 this year.
Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing NGO MONDRA, had challenged the state’s delay in initiating the DGP selection process as mandated by the Supreme Court. However, the state’s response aimed to dispel these concerns by detailing the steps already taken to ensure a timely and compliant appointment process.
The Supreme Court, acknowledging the state’s efforts and the documents provided, decided not to issue a formal notice in the case. However, the justices noted that should there be any violation of the directives, the petitioner could seek to revive the plea. “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 stated.
