
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Tamil Nadu government over appointment of an acting DGP and directed the UPSC to expeditiously recommend names for making a regular appointment.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a petition seeking contempt action against Tamil Nadu for appointing G Venkatraman as the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police on August 31.
"Why do you have an acting DGP? the bench asked.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state, submitted that DGP could not be appointed as one of the officers filed a proceeding before the CAT praying for inclusion of his name in the panel.
The bench then ordered, "We request the UPSC to consider the matter expeditiously. On the recommendation received from the UPSC, the respondent states shall take steps for appointing a regular DGP."
The contempt petition was filed by lawyer Henri Tiphagne who has contended that the appointment of an ad hoc/in-charge DGP was in violation of 2018 Supreme Court decision in the Prakash Singh case.
The plea submitted that the judgment required a State to send a proposal in anticipation of vacancy to the DGP post to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a petition seeking contempt action against Tamil Nadu for appointing G Venkatraman as the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police on August 31.
"Why do you have an acting DGP? the bench asked.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state, submitted that DGP could not be appointed as one of the officers filed a proceeding before the CAT praying for inclusion of his name in the panel.
The bench then ordered, "We request the UPSC to consider the matter expeditiously. On the recommendation received from the UPSC, the respondent states shall take steps for appointing a regular DGP."
The contempt petition was filed by lawyer Henri Tiphagne who has contended that the appointment of an ad hoc/in-charge DGP was in violation of 2018 Supreme Court decision in the Prakash Singh case.
The plea submitted that the judgment required a State to send a proposal in anticipation of vacancy to the DGP post to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent.
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
Read More News on
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.