Thread by @barandbench

#SupremeCourt bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud to hear pleas seeking implementation of police reforms directed in Prakash Singh judgment, including one about appointment of Nagaland DGP.

#police #law #SupremeCourtofIndia

Adv: UPSC Panel was given to State of Nagaland. The state then issued a notification on Jan 6 appointing the person who was empanelled

CJI: So the UPSC gave a panel of only one name?

Adv: Yes

CJI: Where is IPS A Sunil Acharya posted?

#Supremecourt

CJI: There is another officer who is eligible. UPSC did not send his name to Nagaland since he said no. Him saying yes or no is irrelevant since he is in the cadre. Govt can say he is wanted somewhere else. But best way is to hold a MHA Secy and Secy to state of Nagaland

CJI: The meeting can decide if Acharya has to continue somewhere in national interest then it is ok. But the officer has no right to say a yes or no. He is duty bound to serve wherever needed

CJI: Why was Mr Acharya not recommended by UPSC?

UPSC: Officer's unwillingness is noted as a ground and central govt sends this. Centre also did not say anything. Unwillingness is held as an ground unless the Supreme court holds it otherwise

CJI: once UPSC comes to the conclusion that there are no other candidates then why cannot you accept Mr Rupin Sharma (new appointed DGP) as the one?

Adv for petitioner: how can Mr Acharya not be appointed even when he is more deserving especially when he has no right to refuse

CJI: we want MHA to respond on if MHA is willing to discharge Mr Sunil Acharya and join Nagaland as DGP and the next question on reduction of tenure.

CJI: UPSC and Nagaland submits that on Dec 15 UPSC forwarded a single name to be appointed as DGP. Presently Mr Rupin Sharma is the DGP and it appears that Mr Acharya who fulfills conditions of eligibility was not empaneled by UPSC since he is in central deputation

CJI: Mr Acharya has expressed unwillingness to go back to his parent cadre. It is stated that consent is needed for overseas posting and no consent needed for within country posting.

CJI: On Nov 15 UPSC suggested to MHA that tenure of service requited to be a DGP be relaxed to 25 years experience instead of 30 if required no. of candidates was not available. UPSC says MHA concurred with the proposal.

CJI: Having regard to the above position, we issue the following directions:

1. MHA shall file affidavit within a week indicating whether concurrence of officer is necessary before empaneling the officer for appointment as DGP in state even though he is in central deputation

2. in case concurrence is required, the supporting rule to be placed here

3. next to be stated if Mr Acharya is needed in central deputation for national interest or he can be put under the panel for the nagaland DGP post

CJI: 4. MHA shall clarify its communication by which it had concurred with UPSC on allowing it to relaxing the eligibility criteria from 30 to 25 years. #supremecourt

CJI: UPSC to reply within a week showing steps it has taken to act in accordance with the letter by MHA showing concurrence on the relaxing of eligibility criteria. #supremecourt

Adv Prashant Bhushan: why the panel of three was ordered by SC in prakash singh case because that was the max leeway state could be given, it did not mean relaxing age of 5 years etc since it would compromise seniority, experience etc.

Bhushan: even if one officer is fit in all respect and is senior, state is duty bound to appoint.

CJI: We get that

Bhushan: prakash singh original case has to be listed since guidelines under the judgment is regularly being flouted by the states and several contempt pending

CJI: remind us next time and we can seek compliance form states on the guidelines.

CJI: List the case on January 22, 2023 #supremecourt

Next date modified to Jan 23, 2023