The Tripura government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it has been complying with the 2006 verdict on police reforms and initiated the process for appointing a regular Director General of Police (DGP) on March 7.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a PIL filed by NGO MONDRA, which alleged that the state had failed to follow the court-mandated procedure for appointing a new DGP.
In the landmark 2006 Prakash Singh case, the Supreme Court had laid out key police reforms, including the separation of investigation from law and order functions. It had also mandated that states consult the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) before appointing a DGP. Subsequent orders reiterated that the selection process should be initiated well before the retirement of the incumbent and be based on seniority, experience, and merit. The court had directed that a regular DGP be appointed from a panel of three senior IPS officers shortlisted by the UPSC from the list provided by the state.
The plea accused the state government of failing to initiate the prescribed process, alleging that it neither formed a panel of eligible officers nor consulted the UPSC as required.
However, the state’s counsel countered these claims, submitting a letter in a sealed cover to the court, asserting that the process for appointing a new DGP had commenced on March 7. The state further stated that it had been adhering to the 2006 directives and subsequent judgments. It was also noted that the current DGP, Amitabh Ranjan (IPS:1988:TR), who took charge on July 28, 2022, is set to retire on May 31 this year.
The bench recorded the state’s submission, stating, “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 court also noted the state’s assurance that the appointment process would be completed within the stipulated time, stating, “…it is submitted that the appointment will be made in the said period. We are taking the statement on record.”
