An official of the ministry, which is the cadre-controlling authority for the Indian Police Service, mentioned the letter underlined SC directives on appointment of DGPs within the Prakash Singh case. The letter, the official mentioned, has informed states citing SC instructions that non permanent or “acting DGPs” are to be prevented and appointed solely in distinctive circumstances. It mentioned states should observe the apex court docket’s instructions on appointing common DGPs with a tenure of two years.

“We keep reminding the defaulting states that they must follow SC directions and Union Public Service Commission guidelines on appointment of DGPs. This letter has been sent as part of the same exercise,” a senior Home Ministry official mentioned.

Asked if the same letter has additionally been despatched to the Jammu and Kashmir administration, an official mentioned the SC instructions are understood to be relevant to states and never Union Territories.

On February 1, The Indian Express had flagged the case of the seven states talked about above in addition to that of J&Okay. The appointments appearing DGPs are sometimes made by handing the extra cost of the police chief’s publish to a DG-rank officer within the state holding another duty.

Such motion is in violation of the SC pointers on DGP appointments within the Prakash Singh case and the rules issued by the UPSC. The apex court docket has mentioned no non permanent or advert hoc appointments of police chiefs should be made barring distinctive circumstances. UPSC pointers say states should ship an inventory of eligible officers, with a minimum of three senior-most officers, to the Commission six months earlier than the retirement of the incumbent DGP.

Sources within the administration of those states, nonetheless, identified “flaws” within the SC judgement within the Prakash Singh case. They mentioned the order is such that UPSC invariably chooses the three senior-most law enforcement officials from the checklist despatched to it by the states, and the state authorities is compelled to decide on one amongst them. The CM ought to have some discretion over who’s finest suited to steer the police drive. The authorities’s selection might not essentially be among the many three senior-most, they mentioned.

While Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, UP and Punjab have had such non permanent DGPs for nearly or greater than a 12 months, three different states, Uttarakhand, Odisha and West Bengal, and the Union Territory of J&Okay, have lately appointed “acting DGPs”.

Uttar Pradesh has had 4 appearing DGPs up to now 20 months. The Uttar Pradesh authorities on January 31 appointed Director General (Law and Order) Prashant Kumar as its appearing DGP. He changed Vijay Kumar, who, too, was an appearing DGP. Prashant Kumar is seventeenth within the seniority checklist of IPS officers accessible for DGP’s place within the state.