Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh and Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar have gone hot under the collar after the Supreme Court said the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which recruits officers of All India Services including IAS and IPS, will now have a major say in the selection of directors general of police (DGP) of 28 states. The police chiefs of Delhi, Arunachal Pradesh and Puducherry are posted by the Centre.
The chief ministers feel that the federal structure will be threatened if the UPSC presents a panel of three senior officers, from whom the chief minister can select the DGP. According to them, since law and order is a state subject, the appointment of the DGP—who looks after law and order—has to be with the state government.
Illustration: Bhaskaran
As the appointment of police chiefs has been haggled over, both aggrieved police officers and public interest litigants have objected to the absolute power enjoyed by all chief ministers to choose their own nominee as chief secretary and DGP. Only in Kerala does the coalition cabinet decide the names. But, when the coalition is headed by a dominant chief minister, his choice is normally carried through.
Singh’s argument is that IAS and IPS officers assigned to a state are posted under the control of the state government. Since the state government is answerable to the public and the state legislature, it should have complete discretion in selecting a person in whom the chief minister has absolute confidence.
But, in practice, this has led to favourites being appointed, and then given long extensions due to their proximity to the chief minister and ruling party, often superseding other officers equally worthy of the top post. There have been a lot of cases before the courts, and now before administrative tribunals, by aggrieved senior officers challenging appointments of DGPs. Those in favour of curbing the powers of chief ministers point out how the AIADMK gave a long extension to the current Tamil Nadu DGP, whose house was raided by the CBI in the gutkha scam.
The Supreme Court had first intervened in the selection of the directors of the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate, who investigate very sensitive cases of corruption and financial crimes. The court stated that the Central Vigilance Commission should furnish a panel of eligible officers so that the prime minister can select one of them for the job. The court also had said that both the directors should have fixed tenures of two years, so that they can function without fear or favour.
But, since the appointment of the chief vigilance commissioner and two vigilance commissioners is decided by the prime minister himself, there are murmurs that the dice is loaded in his favour. Now, several other top officials including the cabinet secretary, home secretary and foreign secretary have been given two-year terms. But, there is a grouse that the secretary generals of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, who are equated to the cabinet secretary, are given three-year terms.
Singh and Khattar are seeking a review of the Supreme Court order, saying that since there is a state-level mechanism to finalise the names, there is no need for the UPSC to poke its nose into state affairs. But, the Supreme Court has gone in favour of more transparency in appointment to top posts, than allowing chief ministers to play favourites.
sachi@theweek.in