Tripura Government Assures Supreme Court Of Compliance With DGP Appointment Order

During a recent hearing regarding the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Tripura, the state government assured the Supreme Court that it is adhering to the Court’s orders on the matter.

The case, raised by the NGO Mondra, centers around the state’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling on police reforms.

Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, leading the bench, made it clear that the court would not issue a notice on the petition at this stage.

The Court, however, informed the petitioner that should the Tripura government fail to follow the Supreme Court’s orders on the DGP appointment, it would be open to filing another petition.

The comments came after the Tripura government’s lawyer presented arguments, affirming the state’s commitment to the Supreme Court’s directives.

Allegations Of Non-Compliance And Rejection By State Lawyer

The petition filed by the NGO accused the Tripura government of not adhering to the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling concerning police reforms, specifically regarding the DGP appointment process.

It claimed that the judiciary’s order was not being followed in Tripura’s handling of the DGP position.

Also Read: SC Slams Illegal Demolitions; Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation Per Victim

However, the Tripura government’s lawyer strongly rejected these allegations, stating that the state was indeed complying with the Supreme Court’s instructions.

The lawyer emphasized that the state had initiated the process on March 7 and was progressing in accordance with the required legal framework.

Details Of The 2006 Supreme Court Ruling

The 2006 ruling in the Prakash Singh case established several key requirements for the appointment of DGPs across states.

The Supreme Court ordered that, aside from law and order investigations, state governments must consult the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) before making the DGP appointment.

Additionally, the Court stipulated that the government must select the new DGP before the current DGP’s retirement, basing the decision on seniority, experience, and merit.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that states should appoint a full-time DGP instead of opting for an ad-hoc appointee.

To facilitate this process, the UPSC must recommend three senior officers to the state government, which must then select one for the position.

With the Tripura government affirming its compliance, the Court’s stance on this issue is clear: “Any further violations can lead to legal action.”