W.P. (C) 310/1996
Writ for Supreme Court directions on Police Reforms

The enactment of the Indian Police Act in 1861 resulted in some far-reaching changes to the law enforcement system of this country. This combined with the absence of any type of comprehensive review at the national level of the police system after independence led to the appointment of the National Police Commission (NPC) on 15th November 1977 by the Government of India. The commission was appointed for a fresh examination of the role and performance of the police, both as a law enforcement agency and as an institution to protect the rights of the citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. Despite several decades having passed since the NPC gave detailed reports of recommendations, these reforms had not been implemented. They met the same dead-end fate as the recommendations of many other Commissions.

The petitioners in this case, Mr. Prakash Singh, Mr. NK Singh and Common Cause decided to raise the issue of police reforms in the Supreme Court. The petition prayed for the Supreme Court to issue directions to the Government of India to frame a new Police Act along the lines of the Model Police Act.

In its landmark judgement of September 22, 2006, the court observed that no action found necessary to remedy the situation that was within the constitutional scheme was too stringent for these circumstances. The court could only express its hope that all State Governments would rise to the occasion and enact a new Police Act wholly insulating the police from any external pressure. This would be an important measure taken to secure the rights of the citizens under the Constitution for the Rule of Law and guarantee that everyone is treated equally and without prejudice or partiality.  

The court laid down certain guidelines in its judgment. These were to be operative till the new legislation was enacted by the State Governments. The seven directives are the following:

1. State Security Commission (SSC): Meant to ensure that the government of each state does not influence or pressure the state police, as well as to maintain policies that ensure compliance of the state police with the law of the land and the Constitution.
2. Selection and Minimum Tenure of Director General of Police (DGP): The DGP to be selected by the state government on merit from amongst the panel of three senior-most officers of the Department. The DGP should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation.
3. Minimum Tenure of I.G. of Police & Other Officers: Police officers on operational duties like Inspector General of Police (IG), Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), Superintendent of Police (SP) and Station House Officer (SHO) shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years unless they face disciplinary proceedings, are convicted in criminal or corruption cases, or are otherwise unable to perform their duties.
4. Separation of Investigation: The investigative functions of the police should be separated from those related to law and order to ensure speed, efficiency, and good relations during investigations.
5. Police Establishment Board (PEB): To be constituted in each state to decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
6. Police Complaints Authority (PCA): To be constituted at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of DSP. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the state level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of SP and above.
7. National Security Commission (NSC): To be constituted by the central government at the Union level to prepare a panel that will select and place chiefs of the Central Police Organisation (CPO) who will also have a minimum tenure of two years. The commission would also review from time to time the effectiveness of these forces, improve the service conditions of its personnel, ensure that there is proper coordination between the different factions, certify that the forces are generally utilised to fulfill the purposes for which they were raised and make recommendations based on these reviews.

The court gave time till 31.12.2006 for these directives to be carried out by the states. However, several states along with the Union filed an impleadment application in the case praying for modification of direction nos. 1, 4 and 6 of the order. Simultaneously, Mr. Prakash Singh and several others filed contempt petitions in the matter owing to the failure of the states to implement the court directives. The Supreme Court set up another commission headed by Justice KT Thomas to look into the matter. The Thomas Committee submitted its report in 2010 on the matter of non-implementation of the judgement in several states. After perusal of the Thomas committee report, the court gave further directions to the states of West Bengal, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh to comply with the directives. Mr. Harish Salve was appointed as amicus curiae in the case on January 24, 2011.

By its order dated July 3, 2018, the Supreme Court reiterated its 2006 judgement by directing the states to select the DGP from a list of officers empaneled by the UPSC. It gave the following directives:

(a) All the States shall send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the UPSC, well in time at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent on the post of DGP;

(b) The UPSC shall prepare the panel as per the directions of this Court in the judgment in Prakash Singh’s case(supra) and intimate to the States;

(c) The State shall immediately appoint one of the persons from the panel prepared by the UPSC

(d) None of the States shall ever conceive of the idea of appointing any person on the post of DGP on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police as per the decision in Prakash Singh’s case(supra);

(e) An endeavour has to be made by all concerned to see that the person who was selected and appointed as the DGP continues despite his date of superannuation. However, the extended term beyond the date of superannuation should be a reasonable period. We say so as it has been brought to our notice that some of the States have adopted a practice to appoint the DGP on the last date of retirement as a consequence of which the person continues for two years after his date of superannuation. Such a practice will not be in conformity with the spirit of the direction.

(f) Our direction No.(c) should be considered by the UPSC to mean that the persons are to be empanelled, as far as practicable, from amongst the people within the zone of consideration who have got clear two years of service. Merit and seniority should be given due weightage.

(g) Any legislation/rule framed by any of the States or the Central Government running counter to the direction shall remain in abeyance to the aforesaid extent.  

To clarify the above order, the Apex Court on 30 July 2018 said that in case of a sudden vacancy for the post of the DGP, then a DGP has to be appointed on an interim basis. 

In the hearing on 11 September 2018, the Court directed that a copy of the application be served to the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Raju Ramachandran and to the counsel assisting the Attorney General, Mr KK Venugopal. 

In the hearing on 20 September 2018, it was submitted by the AG that the interim DGP of Jammu and Kashmir had been appointed temporarily and names had been sent for for regular appointment. The counsel for UPSC stated that some deficiencies had been found in the communication sent by the J&K government. The Court directed the UPSC to take a decision on the matter within four weeks. The matter is listed for hearing after six weeks. 

In the hearing on 10 December 2018, IA No. 174012/2018 has been listed with IA No. 144172/2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 310/1996.

On 12 December 2018,  the interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the states of Punjab and Haryana were taken up as the term of the present Director General of Police (DGP) expires on 31st December, 2018. The original petitioner is required to file the objections & the Court has estimated that the objections and the reply may be exchanged between the parties by January 8, 2019.

In the state of Bihar, the term of the Director General of Police is till 31st January, 2019. No specific order has been passed in this regard. The interlocutory applications pertaining to the States of Punjab, Haryana and Bihar were listed on January 8, 2019. 

On January 15, 2019, the Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission was directed to inform the Court about the empanelment of IPS Officers for promotion to the rank of Director General of Police (DGP) in different States, made by the Public Service Commission in the discharge of its functions, before January 16, 2019, 10:30 AM.

On January 16, 2019, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) appeared personally on the request of the Court. He stated before the Court that after the judgment was rendered in Prakash Singh Case, a panel of eligible officers in the rank of DGP or Additional DGP had been drawn up by a committee of the UPSC, where the said committee consisted of representatives of the UPSC, the Central Government and the State Governments concerned. 12 States already have the committee in place and subsequent to the directions of this Court, dated July 3, 2018, panels have been drawn up for two States and proposals have been received from two more States for the purpose of drawing up such panels.

I.A. No. 144172/2018 filed on behalf of the State of Punjab was taken up. Subsequent to the decision of this Court in Prakash Singh Case, the State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Police Act, 2007.

The validity of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 has also been challenged before through W.P.(C) No. 286/2013, which is presently pending.

Later, the order dated July 3, 2018 was passed. The Punjab Police Act, 2007 was also amended on September 21, 2018. This amendment remains unchallenged.

The Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Counsels of the State of Punjab referred to the relevant entries on the Union list and State list concerning the selection of DGP.Mr. Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae and Counsels Mr. Prashant Bhusan and Mr. Gopal Sankaranaraynan, learned counsels submitted that keeping in mind the spirit behind the decision in Prakash Singh Case as well as the objectives it sought to achieve, the order dated July 3, 2018 is wholesome.

Both, the provisions of the original Act as well as the amendment Act were contrary to the Prakash Singh Case and the order dated July 3, 2018, however, the bench said that any expression of opinion of this Court on the contentions raised may have the effect of pre-judging the issues arising in W.P.(C) No. 286/2013.

The court specifically referred to para 12 of the Prakash Singh Case:

“The commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the rule of law. The supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures. Its approach has to be service oriented, its role has to be defined so that in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, the rule of law becomes a casualty, the guilty police officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay.”

The Court referred to the Prakash Singh Case with order dated July 3, 2018 and said that it does not require any correction or modification, presently. Until the matter is finally concluded, implementing these will subserve public interest.

In IA Nos. 24616/2019, 115064/2018, 20735/2019 and 11484/2019, the Chief Justice pronounced the judgment of the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, on March 13, 2019. All applications filed by the states of Punjab, Bihar, Haryana, West Bengal and Kerala were dismissed by the bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi along with Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice S K Kaul.

In Cont.Pet.(C) No.2110/2018, the bench dismissed the petition. A contempt petition was filed by the Concerned People of Nagaland, alleging willful disobedience of the order passed on 22nd September, 2006 in Writ Petition (C) No.310 of 1996 [Prakash Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 1] by the Apex Court. The decision mandated empanellment by the Union Public Service Commission for the appointment of the Director General of Police in a State.

The Concerned People of Nagaland had alleged that the appointment of the incumbent was made in violation of Court’s order. The Chief Secretary to the Government, Nagaland claimed in an affidavit that the State of Nagaland has a handful of IPS officers with large number of vacant posts. No IPS officer in the Nagaland cadre had completed 30 years of service. Additionally, the appointment had been made from outside the cadre and, therefore, the state did not refer the matter to the Union Public Service Commission.

The bench consisting Chief Justice and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that in this case, the State has departed from the directions of the Court on grounds that are not illegitimate; but the State should have taken the Court into confidence before resorting to the impugned action. The Court has ordered that either the State Government should comply with the directions or move an application before the Supreme Court, taking responsibility of its actions, nevertheless, this would not qualify as a case of willful disobedience of the Court.

On March 13, 2019, the bench consisting the Chief Justice, Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjiv Khanna clarified the order of the Supreme Court dated July 3, 2018, passed in I.A. No. 25307/2018 in Writ Petition No. 310/1996. The recommendation for the appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the Union Public Service Commission and preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum resident tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement. The bench also mentioned that until the validity of the Police Acts are examined and dealth with by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 286/2013, this direction will hold the field.

On June 12, 2020, the Court ordered the matter to be listed in four weeks.

On September 3, 2021, Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna heard  IA No.90408/2021 & IA No.90411/2021 in W.P.(C) No.286/2013. 

In IA No.90408/2021, the application for impleadment was allowed.  

The relief sought in IA No.90411/2021 was already dealt with in I.A.No.125544 of 2018 in WP(C) No.310 of 1996. Therefore, this application is dismissed.  

The bench has ordered the matter to be listed on October 20, 2021.

On 17th October 2022, the Government of Nagaland communicated a panel of three names accompanied with relevant records for the appointment of the DGP Nagaland when a vacancy arose with effect from 31st August 2022. The three names were empanelled accordingly. However, in response to the recommendations made by the Government of Nagaland on 1st April 2022, the UPSC pointed out certain deficiencies, stating that since the vacancy had arisen as a result of the superannuation of the incumbent Shri T John Longkumer, his name was required to be deleted from the eligibility list. In furtherance to this, the UPSC also pointed out that only officers belonging to the Nagaland cadre are eligible to be considered, whereas Shri T. John Longkumer belongs to the Chhattisgarh cadre.

It was also stated in this communication that Shri A Sunil Acharya (serial number 1 in the seniority list of IPS officers of Nagaland cadre) has been excluded from the eligibility list, while Shri Renchamo P. Kikon, who had been included in the eligibility list hasn’t yet completed 30 years of service, and thus cannot be considered for the eligibility list.

On 31st August 2022, the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs approved the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for extension of service and inter cadre deputation tenure of Shri T. John Longkumer, IPS (CH:1991) from Chhattisgarh cadre to Nagaland cadre for six months from the date of his superannuation on 31st August 2022.

On 4th February 2022, the Appointments Committee recommended the empanelment of “three senior most IPS officers of the Department” to the UPSC for appointment of DGP of the State, after a meeting of the Police Establishment Board of Nagaland was conducted with Chief Secretary as Chairperson, and also included Shri T. John Longkumer – IPS, DGP as a member, although his name was being considered for empanelment and was empanelled. Thus, the Police Establishment Board recommended the release of Apex Scale to the same officer. These decisions have been incorporated in the IAs as they are contrary to the order passed in the Prakash Singh Case, while considering an application for modification of the main judgment.

Thus, the honourable bench before the Supreme Court of India, after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the State of Nagaland and the UPSC, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli decided that in view of the communication issued by the UPSC on 1st April 2022, the State of Nagaland should immediately send the list of empanelled officers for appointment to the post of DGP. In context of this, it must be ensured that the list of empanelled officers is drawn up in accordance with law after duly rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the UPSC in its communication dated 1st April 2022. Moreover, the list of eligible officers who are empanelled must be communicated to the UPSC by 31st October 2022, and the UPSC shall take a decision on or before 30th November 2022.

The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli directed the IA to be listed on 9th December 2022.

Accordingly, the State of Nagaland furnished the names of two eligible officers – A. Sunil Acharya and Rupin Sharma. However, it was indicated by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs that A. Sunil Acharya, who is on Central Deputation doesn’t wish to be considered for posting as DGP Nagaland, which was also confirmed by the officer on 16th November 2022. Accordingly, the State Government furnished the ACRs of Rupin Sharma on 17th November 2022 and 18th November 2022.

On 9th December 2022, the UPSC sought 60 days’ time for convening the Empanelment Committee Meeting for preparation of a panel of officers for appointment to the post of DGP Nagaland as consultations with the Ministry of Home Affairs were still in progress at that time. However, the UPSC also stated that this will not cause any administrative dislocation as the extended tenure will be over on 28th February 2023.

However, in view of the observations made by this court on its order dated 17th October 2022, the court declined to grant a period of 60 days to the UPSC and directed that the final decision must be taken on or before 19th December 2022.

Accordingly, the bench comprising of the Honourable Chief Justice and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha disposed of IA No. 188126 of 2022 and directed IA No. 144787 of 2022 and IA No. 144785 of 2022 to be listed on 9th January 2023.

As submitted on behalf of UPSC, on 15th December 2022, the UPSC forwarded a panel consisting of a solitary name (Shri Rupin Sharma) to the State of Nagaland for appointment on the post of DGP. Apart from the above name, another candidate, Shri A. Sunil Acharya fulfilled the conditions of eligibility, but was not empanelled by the UPSC as he is on central deputation and expressed his unwillingness to go back to his parent cadre.

In response to this, the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland submitted that in terms of the applicable rules, while the consent of the officer is required for an overseas posting, no consent is required for posting within the country, and thus the non-empanelment of Shri A. Sunil Acharya is not justified.

On 15th November 2022, the UPSC communicated to the Ministry of Home Affairs, suggesting that UPSC be empowered to relax the eligibility criterion of 30 years’ service to 25 years for the states of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Uttarakhand, Tripura, and Sikkim. This proposal was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs, as submitted by the counsel for UPSC.

Thus, in view of the above submissions, on 9th January 2023, the court comprising of a bench of the Honourable Chief Justice and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha gave the following directions:

1. Ministry of Home Affairs to file an affidavit before this court within a week indicating whether the concurrence of the officer is necessary before empanelment fir appointment as DGP of the state where the officer is on central deputation.
2. If concurrence of the officer is required, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the specific rule requiring such concurrence shall be adverted to in the affidavit.
3. The Ministry of Home Affairs must clarify whether the services of Shri A. Sunil Acharya are required due to the exigencies of service on central deputation or whether he can be empanelled for the post of DGP, Nagaland as a sufficient number of eligible officers aren’t available for being empanelled.
4. The Ministry of Home Affairs is also expected to record its communication by which it concurred the proposal submitted by the UPSC on 15th November 2022, allowing relaxation of the eligibility criterion from 30 years to 25 years, inter alia, in the State of Nagaland.
5. In this regard, the UPSC is also required to file an affidavit in a week setting out the steps it has taken in pursuance of the concurrence in response to the letter dated 15th November 2022.

Thus, in view of the above submissions, on 9th January 2023, the court comprising of a bench of the Honourable Chief Justice and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha listed the Writ Petition and the Contempt Petition on 23rd January 2023.

On 23rd January 2023, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs clarified that the consent of the officer is not required for empanelment as DGP of the state, Mr. A. Sunil Acharya who is on central deputation is posted as Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, and having regard to the nature of such posting, it wouldn’t be possible to relieve him for appointment as DGP, Nagaland.

The counsel State of Nagaland reiterated the decision in the Prakash Singh Case, stating that the DGP of the state must be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the department who have been empanelled. Thus, the UPSC couldn’t have recommended a solitary officer, and that Shri A. Sunil Acharya should have also been empanelled.

This however does not imply that the State would be at liberty to completely bypass the requirements of the decision in the event that in a given case, less than three officers who fulfil the eligibility requirements are available for empanelment. The state of Nagaland contended that in view of the communications dated 15th November 2022 and 12th December 2022 of the UPSC and Ministry of Home Affairs, the UPSC must relax the minimum 30 years’ service eligibility requirement by considering the officers within the cadre of the State of Nagaland having less than 30 years’ service.

The counsel on behalf of the UPSC, in response to the above contention, stated that it wouldn’t be open to the State of Nagaland to insist such grant of relaxation by the UPSC, as allowing such relaxation would apply prospectively, and it is still in the process of considering whether to allow its guidelines to envisage such relaxation in future. Moreover, since presently there is an officer who fulfils the eligibility requirements, there is no reason why his appointment shouldn’t take place. This wouldn’t be in the interests of the police service and would open the door to arbitrary selections.

Thus, the court comprising of a bench made up of the honourable Chief Justice of India, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, and Justice B. Pardiwala, directed that the State of Nagaland shall pass consequential orders for implementation of the above within a week for the appointment of the officer who has been duly empanelled by the UPSC for the post of DGP, Nagaland.

Accordingly, the IA filed by the State of Nagaland, along with any other pending applications stand disposed of.

With reference to the Contempt Petition No. 13 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 310/1996, it was observed by this court that it wouldn’t be expedient in the interest of justice to exercise this contempt jurisdiction any further, and thus, the contempt petition, along with any other pending applications stand disposed of.

In reference to W.P.(C) 310/1996, the court directed the matter to be listed on 11th April 2023.

Download :

WP(C) 310/1996 (Scanned Copy)
Judgement 22.06.2006 WP 310/1996
Order_20 Sep 2018
Order_30 Nov 2018
Order_7 Dec 2018
Order_10 Dec 2018
Order_12 Dec 2018
Order_8 Jan 2019
Order_15 Jan 2019
Order_16 Jan 2019
Order_19 Feb 2019
Order_13 Mar 2019
Order_28 Feb 2019
Order_13 Mar 2019
Judgement 13.03.2019 WP 310/1996
Order_12 Apr 2019
Order_3 Sept 2021
Order_17.10.2022
Order_09-Dec-2022
Order_09-Jan-2023
Order_23-Jan-2023