MADURAI: The pre-appointment procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court and the Centre for choosing new Director General of Police/Head of Police Force (DGP/HoPF) should be scrupulously followed by the State to maintain transparency and independence in the appointment process, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court observed on Thursday.
Since the Additional Advocate General (AAG) M Ajmal Khan, representing the State, informed that the process for appointing a new DGP for Tamil Nadu is ongoing, the court said it concurred with the view taken by a coordinate bench of the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court that a petition against the selection at this stage is premature.
Holding that no further interference is required in the above appointment process at this juncture, the court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an advocate over the delay in initiating the above appointment process.
A bench of justices SM Subramaniam and G Arul Murugan passed the order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by K Yasar Arafath of Ramanathapuram, seeking to stop the government from extending the tenure of incumbent DGP Shankar Jiwal, who is set to retire on August 31, or appointing an acting DGP, without taking any steps for empanelling eligible IPS officers and forwarding their names to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for preparing a panel.
Arafath alleged that the ruling government is deliberately delaying the appointment to ensure that an officer of its choice leads the police department till the upcoming state elections in May 2026. He wanted the government to appoint the new DGP through the mandatory process prescribed by the Supreme Court in one Prakash Singh's case in 2006. In the previous hearing, the court had sought response on the procedure to be adopted by the State in the above matter.
When the case was heard on Thursday, the AAG pointed out that the Principal Seat had recently dismissed a similar petition on the ground that the plea was premature. But, following subsequent observations made by the court, he submitted, on instructions from the government, that the appointment process is now ongoing.
Recording this, the judges disposed of the petition by reiterating that the pre-appointment procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court, the consequential draft guidelines issued by the Union Public Service Commission and the Single Window System notified by the central government should be scrupulously followed by the State to ensure transparency in the appointment.