A intense legal conflict surrounding the appointment of Odisha's new Director General of Police (DGP) reached the Supreme Court, prompting the apex court to intervene and halt the process. Taking a firm stance on the matter, the court instructed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to immediately postpone its meeting scheduled to finalize the candidate. The bench further ordered that no final decision regarding the state's police chief should be taken until August 18, following serious allegations of procedural breaches.
Chidambaram Raises Allegations of Procedural Violations
Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram mentioned the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before a bench presided over by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. During the hearing, he argued that the selection process directly violated the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Prakash Singh judgment on police reforms. Chidambaram urged the court to intervene urgently, pointing out that the UPSC was set to convene a meeting on the very same day to finalize the panel name.
Highlighting a specific irregularity, P. Chidambaram alleged that an official was given a rushed overnight promotion just a day prior to the court hearing. He asserted that this sudden promotion was executed solely to make the officer eligible for inclusion in the eligibility panel submitted to the UPSC, thereby undermining the integrity of the selection framework.
State Defense and Initial Judicial Observations
Representing the state government, Advocate General of Odisha Pitambar Acharya denied all allegations of procedural non-compliance. He defended the state's actions and questioned the maintainability of a PIL in service-related disputes, arguing that administrative appointments should not be challenged through public interest petitions by third parties.
Initially, CJI Surya Kant observed that no officer directly aggrieved by the selection process had personally approached the court. This initial remark suggested reluctance to stay the ongoing process, leaving the immediate outcome of the petition uncertain during the early stages of arguments.
Intervention of Amicus Curiae Leads to Stay Order
The turning point in the proceedings came when the bench sought the view of Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who serves as the Amicus Curiae in the Prakash Singh case. Raju Ramachandran supported the petition and affirmed before the bench that the ongoing selection procedure indeed violated the Supreme Court guidelines governing DGP appointments.
Following the opinion expressed by the Amicus Curiae, the bench headed by CJI Surya Kant directed the counsel representing the UPSC to defer the scheduled meeting immediately. The court mandated that the selection process must remain on hold until the next comprehensive hearing scheduled for August 18, when the legal issues will be examined in detail.
