Collegium of CM, LoP & Minister To Select DGP Not Workable, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday orally observed that the suggestion to constitute a collegium comprising the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a minister to select Directors General of Police (DGPs) would not be workable.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joylamya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi made the observation while hearing applications seeking modification of the directions issued in Prakash Singh v. Union of India relating to the appointment of DGPs.
Senior Advocate Ramu Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae in the matter, told the Court that the proposal to create a collegium consisting of the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a minister for selecting the DGP was not workable. The Chief Justice agreed with this assessment.
The issue arose after petitioner Prakash Singh, the original petitioner, sought modification of paragraph 31.2 of the judgment. He suggested that the DGP selection process could be aligned with the mechanism adopted for appointing the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, where a high-level committee selects the director.
However, the Court indicated reservations about the proposal.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice stressed the importance of having a central authority in the process. “For DGP, there has to be a central authority. The Union Public Service Commission is a constitutional body. There is no allegation against the UPSC,” the CJI observed.
Raju Ramachandran submitted that while the UPSC could prepare a panel of eligible officers, the final choice should lie with the State government. According to him, the DGP is a “post of confidence”, and therefore the political executive must retain the discretion to choose from the panel.
“Once UPSC prepares the panel, the State should have a choice. The decision-making should not be broad-based. An elected government should have the choice to select its principal officers,” he submitted.
Responding to this, the Chief Justice said that when the UPSC prepares the panel, objectivity in the selection process is ensured.
Ramachandran reiterated that once such an objective panel is prepared, the final decision should be left to the political executive. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the State of West Bengal, also agreed with the view of Ramachandran.
The Court however adjourned the application, as Advocate Prashant Bhushan, the counsel for the applicant, was not available today.
According to the 2006 direction in the Prakash Singh case, the Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission.
As per the 2018 directions in the Prakash Singh case, the States must submit their proposals three months ahead of the retirement of the incumbent DGP, following which the UPSC should prepare a panel of names, from which the State must make the appointment.
The Court also closed the contempt filed against the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directions regarding the appointment of a regular DGP.
During the hearing, Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and P. Wilson, appearing for the Chief Secretary, informed the Court that the proposal containing the names of eligible officers had already been forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for consideration by the empanelment committee. They further apprised the bench that the committee is scheduled to meet on 20 March 2026 to prepare the panel for the appointment of the regular DGP. Taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the State, the Court closed the contempt petition filed by Advocate Henry.
The Court also orally told the State of Punjab that it cannot take the shield under the law it enacted to evade compliance with the directions of the Court. Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi told the Court that the law enacted by the Punjab assembly in furtherance of the Prakash Singh directions was awaiting the assent of the President. The Court said that in the absence of an effective law, the Court's directions will have to be complied.