Secondly, the court directed the States to “ensure that the DGP is appointed through a merit-based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years.”
On Tuesday, the Centre, represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, submitted that of 29 States only five — Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana and Rajasthan — have implemented the Supreme Court direction of 2006 to consult the UPSC on the appointment of DGPs.
Mr. Venugopal submitted that some State governments have even gone to the extent of appointing their ‘favourite’ officers as DGP on the very date of their retirement so that they would continue to serve for another two years till the age of 62. Here, the court clarified that though States may make an endeavour to allow the DGP appointed to continue in office despite his or her date of superannuation, this extension of tenure should be only for a “reasonable period.”
On the practice of States appointing ‘Acting DGPs’, the court ordered that States shall not “ever conceive of the idea” of such appointments. “There is no concept of Acting DGPs,” the apex court said.