Nagaland DGP Appointment : Supreme Court Pulls Up UPSC For Delay, Sets December 19 Deadline

On the last date of hearing, the Apex Court directed the State of Nagaland to send a fresh list of empanelled officers for appointment to the post of Director General of Police (DGP) Nagaland to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) by 31.10.2022. It further directed the UPSC to take a decision on the appointment by 30.11.2022.

Disappointed that the fresh appointment is being stalled, a Bench comprising CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and P.S. Narasimha noted that UPSC is duty bound to enforce the order of the Supreme Court. The Bench, displeased with the delay in reaching a decision with respect to the appointment of the DGP have cautioned the concerned authorities, namely, the UPSC, Ministry of Home Affairs and the State of Nagaland of initiating contempt proceedings if its order is not complied with by 19.12.2022.

"The UPSC is duty bound to enforce the order of this Court. We therefore decline to grant a period of 60 days and direct that a final decision be taken on or before 19.12.2022. All necessary formalities which have to be completed shall be sorted out between UPSC, MHA and Nagaland within the aforesaid period. We are constrained to put authorities on notice that should this order not be complied with, the Court would be constrained to take recourse to the coercive arm of law to ensure compliance of the judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India."

The Bench refused to accept the ground put forth by UPSC that there would not be any disruption in the administration in Nagaland as the extended tenure of the incumbent DGP is to come to an end only on 28th February, 2023.

"In view of the above observations of this Court, we are of the considerate view that the UPSC has no justification to point out to this court that extended tenure of the incumbent will be over on 28.02.2023 no administrative dislocation would be caused in the State of Nagaland."

During the course of the hearing, the Counsel for the State of Nagaland implored the Bench to grant relaxation in the necessary qualification set out by UPSC for being appointed as the DGP, which requires 30 years of service. The Counsel pointed out that there was only one officer who meets the criteria and therefore, it would not be possible to provide a list of 3 empanelled officers as required for the purpose of appointment.

Advocate, Ms. Wadia appearing on behalf of Nagaland Law Students' Federation submitted that unlike in larger States like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in a State like Nagaland, there would not be a list of 40-50 officers. But, she indicated that there are three officers who would meet the criteria (Sunil Acharya, Rupin Sharma and Janardhan). She submitted that no relaxation be granted at this stage and the senior most officer be recommended for the post of DGP.

The Counsel for the State informed the Bench that they had written to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs regarding Sunil Acharya (senior most officer), who at present is on Central deputation. But, it appears that the officer is not willing to be considered for the post of DGP, Nagaland. And with respect to Janardhan, the Counsel submitted that he has not completed 30 years of service.

The CJI noted, "You have Rupin Sharma who is a 1992 batch officer, who has completed 30 years…I am sorry, but you are trying to evade compliance of the order."

The CJI again asked the Counsel for the State, " What is the difficulty with Rupin Sharma?"

Counsel for State responded, "We as a State also have a discretion to recommend a panel of 3 officers."

The CJI cautioned the Counsel for UPSC to complete the process in a weeks' time or else he stated that the Chairperson of UPSC would be asked to be present in Court on the next date of hearing.

"We will give one week to UPSC now. Otherwise we will ask the Chairperson to appear before us."

The Bench was hearing an application in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, wherein the applicant (Nagaland Law Students' Federation) assailed the appointment and service extension of the incumbent DGP, Mr. T.J. Longkumer which is argued to be on the teeth of the mandate in Prakash Singh (supra). One of the points of challenge was that in the proceedings of the Police Establishment Board of Nagaland for the empanelment of officers, conducted on 04.02.2022, included T John Longkumer as a member though his name was considered for empanelment and he was later empanelled. On the last occasion the Court had taken note of the same and recorded in the order, "the officer participated in the meeting which directly pertained to his empanelment as DGP and for the conferment of the Apex Scale."

On 23.03.2022, the Government of Nagaland had communicated a panel of three names for appointment to the post of DGP, Nagaland to the UPSC, as the incumbent DGP was to superannuate on 31.08.2022. By way of a communication dated 01.04.2022, UPSC pointed out some deficiencies in the State Government's recommendation. The most crucial one being the inclusion of the name of Mr. Longkumer in the empanelment list. UPSC clarified that since the vacancy arises because of the superannuation of Mr Longkumar, his name has to be deleted from the eligibility list. On 31.08.2022, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union Government granted extension of service and extension of inter-cadre deputation of tenure of Mr. Longkumer from Chhattisgarh cadre to Nagaland cadre for 6 months from the date of his superannuation on 31.08.2022.

[Case Title: Prakash Singh & Ors v UOI W.P.(C) No. 310/1996]