NEW DELHI: In the hearing of the state police chief selection case on Wednesday, the Supreme Court asked whether the Odisha government was aware of the CBI FIR regarding the police SI exam irregularity before sending the name of DGP-level officer Sushant Kumar Nath to the UPSC empanelment committee.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the matter.
The senior counsel Karuna Nundy, appearing for police officer Nath, submitted that under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a request for sanction to interrogate officers of the contractor agency M/s ITI, which was in charge of the exam, is pending. But no CBI request to interrogate Sushant Kumar Nath is pending.
He said that the CBI may summon Nath in the future, but so far has not sought permission. The CBI registered the FIR in the SI exam case on November 12, 2025. IPS officer Nath's name was not in it. Thereafter, in May 2026, his name was sent to the UPSC for DGP empanelment.
Justice Bagchi asked whether the Odisha government had informed the UPSC about the CBI FIR. If the state government knew about it, why did it not inform the UPSC? Why did it send Nath's name to the UPSC in May despite knowing about the FIR registered in November?, the court questioned.
Hearing these submissions, the Advocate General Pitambar Acharya, top law officer for the State govt, told the bench he will reply it on Thursday, when the matter would be taken up for hearing again in the top court.
Amicus curiae (Friend to assist the court) Raju Ramachandran submitted that by indirectly withholding the integrity certificate of an eligible officer, the Odisha government has circumvented the court's earlier order. The government should explain by affidavit why and under what circumstances it wants to withhold the integrity certificate of a DGP-level officer.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for original applicant Prakash Singh, submitted that as per the Centre's November 2012 guidelines, vigilance clearance for promotion can be withheld only on three grounds: when the employee is under suspension, when disciplinary proceedings are pending and chargesheet filed, and when a criminal case is under trial. If none apply, withholding the integrity certificate is not justified.