HC bins PIL on appointment of next DGP
2
Chennai/Madurai:
Madras high court
on Monday dismissed a public interest writ petition by a former superintendent of police seeking direction to the Tamil Nadu govt to select the next director-general of police in strict compliance with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court.
The first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that it cannot interfere in the administrative functions of the state while the incumbent DGP is set to retire only on Aug 31.
According to petitioner Damodaran, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines regarding the appointment of a DGP to a state. According to these guidelines, a list of officers with at least 30 years of service must be sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least six months before the incumbent DGP's retirement.
You Can Also Check:
Chennai AQI
|
Weather in Chennai
|
Bank Holidays in Chennai
|
Public Holidays in Chennai
The UPSC is required to evaluate the list and recommend three eligible candidates to the state govt, which must appoint one among them as the DGP, he said.
Although there are at least eight eligible officers in the state, the Tamil Nadu govt had not initiated any such process so far. With the assembly elections scheduled for next year, the DGP appointment holds significant administrative importance, he added.
Noting that the petition is premature, the bench observed that a fresh petition can be filed if the eventual appointment of a new DGP violates Supreme Court guidelines.
In a related development, Madurai bench of the Madras high court issued notice to authorities, on a similar PIL seeking a direction to the govt in the matter of appointment of new DGP of Tamil Nadu.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Experts suggest increasing priority area for Great Indian Bustards in Rajasthan: Centre tells SC
The Centre on Thursday (August 7, 2025) informed the Supreme Court about a suggestion to add an extra 850 square kilometer area in priority Great Indian Bustards (GIBs) habitats in Rajasthan. These critically endangered birds are particularly found in Rajasthan and Gujarat, and the alarming decrease in their numbers can be attributed to frequent collisions with overhead power transmission lines, including those of solar plants, near their habitats. They have lateral vision as their eyes are on the sides of their head and they find it difficult to change their course of flight when confronted with a live wire. Observing the birds were an endangered species, requiring urgent protection, the apex court in March last year formed an expert committee to suggest areas for underground laying of power transmission lines in priority and potential GIB habitats in Rajasthan and Gujarat. The matter came up for hearing on Thursday (August 7) before a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said initially, around 99,000 square kilometer (sq km) area was held up in Rajasthan and Gujarat where renewable energy projects could not take place for conservation of GIBs. Referring to the March 2024 verdict, Ms. Bhati said the top court set up the committee, which has submitted two reports, one each for Rajasthan and Gujarat. She said the judgement referred to priority and potential areas. Ms. Bhati said the committee opined an original priority area of around 13,000 sq km in Rajasthan should remain sacrosanct and remain a priority area. "Additionally, the committee has recommended 850 sq km to be added as an additional priority area which should remain sacrosanct," she said, pointing out a dissent note in the report over some aspects. said the court would have to consider both the reports. The 2024 verdict noted the total priority area was 13,663 sq km in both States whereas the total potential area was 80,680 sq km. The verdict further observed in Rajasthan, 13,163 sq km was priority area, 78,580 sq km was potential area and 5,977 sq km was additionally important areas. Similarly, for Gujarat, the verdict noted 500 sq km was priority area, 2,100 sq km was potential area and 677 sq km was additionally important areas. During Thursday's hearing, the Bench asked whether there was any opposition to the committee's recommendations. "One aspect which we are indicating is that there is a very high priority area because the breeding is taking place just adjacent to that and we believe that should be included," senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioner, said. Referring to another aspect, Mr. Divan said they just wanted it to be refined. "They have suggested a very good thing, that is, a power corridor so that all the lines are at one place instead of criss-crossing and creating a hazard," he said. The Bench posted the matter for September 16. In its March 2024 verdict, the apex court said the order passed by it in April 2019 would need to be suitably modulated and a blanket direction for the undergrounding of low-voltage and high-voltage power lines would need calibration and to be looked at by domain experts. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by retired IAS officer and others which said the birds were on the verge of extinction and the top court's 2021 order hadn't been complied with. The top court, in its 2021 judgment on the PIL, passed a slew of directions to protect the birds. Gujarat and Rajasthan governments were ordered to replace overhead electric cables with underground cables, wherever feasible, and install bird diverters in priority areas where the birds live.
Scroll.in
15 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Lakhimpur Kheri violence: SC questions UP Police inaction on witness' complaint of threat, bribe
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police for not acting on a witness' complaint that he was threatened with 'dire consequences' and offered a bribe not to testify in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case involving former Union minister Ajay Mishra's son Ashish Mishra, Live Law reported. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh directed the police to verify the allegations. On June 20, Baljinder Singh filed a written complaint alleging that an unidentified person offered him Rs 1 lakh and threatened him with consequences if he testified in the case, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the complainant, told the court. Bhushan added that despite the written complaint, no first information report had been registered, Live Law reported. The Uttar Pradesh Police reportedly claimed that Singh had not appeared in person, which is why the FIR was not filed. The court said this explanation was unsatisfactory. 'In case the complainant has been reluctant in coming forward in support of his complaint, some senior police officer can be deputed to visit the complainant…to verify if complaint has been made by him,' Live Law quoted the bench as saying. 'If such contents are acknowledged it is imperative for police to investigate.' The court also directed the senior superintendent of police in Lucknow to verify the complaint and file an affidavit along with a fresh status report. The case pertains to the death of eight persons, including four farmers, on October 3, 2021, as violence had broken out after a vehicle belonging to Ashish Mishra had allegedly run over a group of demonstrators. The violence had taken place in Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh during a protest against the Union government's farm laws that were later repealed. During the hearing on Thursday, Bhushan also said that if Singh's allegations were found to be credible, Ashish Mishra's bail would have to be cancelled. He was granted bail by the Supreme Court in July 2024. Ashish Mishra's counsel opposed this, claiming the allegations lacked evidence. He told the court that 20 witnesses had already been examined by the trial court, while another 20 had been dropped by the prosecution. He also claimed that although the trial court was hearing the case thrice a month, 'nobody turns up'. While Bhushan requested a day-to-day hearing, the bench declined, saying it could impact other pending cases.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Dharmasthala case: SC to hear plea against Karnataka HC order lifting media gag
New Delhi, The Supreme Court would hear on Friday a plea challenging a recent order of the Karnataka High Court quashing a media gag on reportage surrounding the controversial Dharmasthala mass burial case. Dharmasthala case: SC to hear plea against Karnataka HC order lifting media gag The high court on August 1 set aside an earlier gag order issued by a Bengaluru civil court restraining reportage on the burial case. 'Around 8,000 YouTube channels are running defamatory material against the Dharmasthala temple,' an advocate submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and sought urgent listing of an appeal against the high court order. Harshendra Kumar D, Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple body, moved the apex court seeking removal of what he alleges is defamatory content targeting the family that manages the temple. 'I think it's already listed for tomorrow,' the CJI said. On July 23, the CJI-led bench declined to hear another petition filed by YouTube channel Third Eye challenging a sweeping gag order that restrained media houses from reporting on matters related to the brother of Dharamadhikari D Veerendra Heggade of Dharamsthala in Karnataka. The gag order was over reports on the alleged murders of women in Dharmasthala in the state's Dakshina Kannada district. The plea, filed against an ex parte interim order of a local court, questioned the legality of the directive which directed as many as 390 media houses to remove nearly 9,000 links and stories related to the Dharamsthala burial case. The CJI had questioned the petitioner for not moving the high court. 'You go the high court first,' the CJI said. The gag order was passed in Kumar's defamation suit alleging spread of false and defamatory online content, despite the absence of specific allegations against him or the temple authorities in any FIR. Recently, Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara said a thorough investigation must precede any conclusions regarding the alleged murders of women in Dharmasthala. The state government has constituted a special investigation team to probe the allegations. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
