NEW DELHI: Amicus curiae (friend of the court) Raju Ramachandran on Monday questioned the empanelment procedure before the Supreme Court in his submissions in the Odisha DGP appointment case, specifically raising issues over the exclusion of senior officer Sushant Kumar Nath, whether an integrity certificate was considered, and the sudden promotion of officers whose names were subsequently added to the shortlist.
Ramachandran, along with Dr Charu Mathur, focused in their submissions before the top court on procedural integrity, transparency and adherence to established guidelines, referring to the Prakash Singh judgments and recent actions by the Odisha government and the UPSC.
The Amicus Curiae report, exclusively accessed by TNIE, expressed serious concern over the Odisha government’s creation of temporary ex-cadre DGP posts just before the appointment process, which allowed two Additional DGPs to become eligible for selection to the post of DGP.
“This was done after the original eligibility list (dated 14.05.2026) had already been submitted to the UPSC. The Amicus notes that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had earlier denied such posts, and the sudden reversal lacked clear justification,” the amicus submitted.
It recommended that only the original eligibility list be considered by the Empanelment Committee to prevent manipulation and ensure fairness.
“There is an apparent inconsistency in the years of service attributed to promoted officers, particularly Shri Sanjeeb Panda,” it stated. The amicus suggested that the State be directed to explain why its letter claims Panda had completed 32 years of service, while the eligibility list shows less than 31 years as of the relevant date. This clarification, it said, was necessary to maintain transparency and accuracy in the selection process.
The amicus further submitted that the State Government of Odisha should be directed to file an affidavit before the court stating the reasons for withholding the Integrity Certificate of one of the eligible DGP-level officers, given the prevailing position in law and the officer’s continuation in the post of DGP.
“While it is correct that the State Govt. can withhold a certificate, the question of whether such action has been taken for cogent reasons and based on application of mind to relevant material can be examined by this Court,” the submission said.
Ramachandran further submitted that, in light of the inconsistency in the MHA’s stand and the lack of clear reasons for bringing two officers into the zone of consideration after the initial proposal had been submitted, the Empanelment Committee should consider only the Original Eligibility List submitted on May 14, 2026, and not the Updated List of August 10, 2026, which reflected the promotions made on August 10.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Monday deferred the hearing to September 16 on a PIL challenging the selection process for the Odisha DGP.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter and adjourned the proceedings for a week.
The PIL alleged that Odisha was attempting to shortlist a junior-ranking officer for the post of DGP, contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions in the Prakash Singh versus Union of India case, which mandate a panel comprising the senior-most officers with the minimum required service tenure.
The plea contended that the State’s move breached the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the 2006 Prakash Singh case, which require the UPSC to prepare a panel of three senior-most eligible officers for appointment as DGP to ensure transparency and insulate the process from political interference.
The top court, in its 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case, had made it clear that the office of DGP should be insulated from political or other external pressures.
