Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued notice to states on an application filed by the centre demanding a modification of its earlier order in the case of Prakash Singh and Ors v. Union of India. In this case, the Apex Court had issued seven binding directions on police reforms. Looking into the present position, the application demands for the tenure of the Director General of Police be made subjected to the date of superannuation, whereas the Apex Court had already directed that DGP should have a minimum tenure of 2 years irrespective of the date of superannuation.
The application seeks direction to amend the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 to provide for tenure of 2 years to IPS officers. It has also seeded an amendment to the effect that only such officers be appointed as DGP (HoPF) in the states and Union Territories respectively. They should have at least two years of residual service and have empanelled to hold the post of Director General in the State Government by the empanelment committee.
The Centre’s application has made reference to the Supreme Court judgement in T.S.R Subramanian and Ors v. UOI and Ors. The apex court in this case had clearly directed that “minimum tenure of service be prescribed for civil servants. Thereafter, the Department of Personnel and Training had issued notification for amending the 1954 Rules, providing for atleast 2 years of minimum tenure to IPS officers”.
The petition filed by Mr. Prakash Singh contended that Department of Personnel and Training notification had violated the order of Apex court’s direction in Prakash Singh’s case, as it made the two years tenure subject to the date of superannuation. The court after this has clearly barred the Centre as well as the States from implementing the amended Rules.
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said before the bench which comprised Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D.Y Chandrachud and Justice A.M Khanwiljar the need for implementation of the Supreme Court’s Direction in Prashant Singh’s case. It is been 11 and a half years since the judgement was rendered. The apex court has issued seven directions so as to ensure that the policies governed by the rule of law and not by the command of political masters. Many states have not implemented the same and in fact have passed acts contradictory to it.
Amicus Curiae, Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran suggested that “all high courts to be directed to constitute committees to monitor the functioning of the state security commissions required to established as per the Prakash Singh’s judgement.” To this suggestion, CJI has opined that the high courts can be directed to monitor on the judicial side.
The bench has questioned Attorney General K.K Venugopal, who had asserted that the judgement is being misused by the states. The bench now asked him,” Why can you not amend the rules? Once the review petition was dismissed, how can you seek modification to the order?”.
86540
103860
630
114
59824