Ranchi, September 2: The Supreme Court‘s hearing regarding the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Jharkhand was postponed on Wednesday. Chief Justice Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohanan were set to begin the proceedings when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Jharkhand government, stated that they had not received the report from the amicus curiae appointed by the court. Without this report, he argued, the government was unable to present its case.
Sibal requested the court to direct that the amicus curiae’s report be made available to the government. He emphasized that the government could only respond after reviewing the report. The court accepted this request and ordered that the report be provided. The next hearing is scheduled for September 7. During the previous hearing on August 18, the Supreme Court had directed that essential documents related to the DGP appointment be submitted to the amicus curiae.
The court had instructed the amicus curiae to submit a report concerning the DGP appointment in Jharkhand. Although the report has been submitted to the Supreme Court, the Jharkhand government remains unaware of its contents. This lack of information prompted the government to request the report’s availability during Wednesday’s proceedings.
Previously, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice to the state government, questioning why the names of officials for the DGP appointment had not been forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission. The DGP appointment issue in Jharkhand has been mired in controversy for some time. This matter is linked to the Supreme Court’s directives in the Prakash Singh vs. Union of India case. The state government has created a separate set of rules for DGP appointments in 2024.
The petitioners argue that this new set of rules deviates from the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The state government based the DGP appointment rules on Section 21 of the Jharkhand Act of 1897 and Section 2 of the Police Act of 1861. Consequently, the ‘DGP Selection and Appointment Rules, 2024’ were formulated.
Under these rules, Anurag Gupta was appointed as DGP. After his removal, Tadasha Mishra was also appointed as DGP under the same regulations. Following Gupta’s appointment, the matter escalated to the Supreme Court. BJP leader and Leader of Opposition in the Assembly, Babulal Marandi, filed two petitions regarding this issue—one in the Jharkhand High Court and another in the Supreme Court. The High Court petition challenged the validity of the DGP appointment rules created by the state government.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court petition sought contempt proceedings against the members of the committee formed for the DGP selection. The Supreme Court dismissed Marandi’s contempt petition and ordered the transfer of the petition challenging the validity of the DGP appointment rules from the High Court to the Supreme Court. This led to the case being taken up by the Supreme Court.
Leave a Comment