SC to hear pleas over police reforms, ad-hoc appointment of DGPs
PTI
New Delhi, Jul 28 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine after two weeks a range of issues including the ad-hoc appointment of DGPs in some states.
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria said it would also consider a plea of petitioner and former DGP Prakash Singh seeking to put a system in place where a panel comprising chief minister, the leader of opposition and the chief justice of the high court select the director general of police (DGP).
Advocate Prashant Bhushan said like the appointment of the CBI director, a three-member panel could be set up to appoint a suitable person as the DGP.
The bench also took note of the submission of senior lawyer Anjana Prakash who said due process was not followed in the appointment of Jharkhand DGP Anurag Gupta.
Gupta was set to retire on April 30 under the Central government's rules on reaching the age of 60 but the state government wrote to the Centre for extension of his tenure, it was alleged.
'All these matters are important and will require sometime," the CJI said.
The CJI asked the counsel, appearing for various parties, to provide the copies of their petitions to senior advocate Raju Ramachandran who would assist the bench as an amicus curiae.
The pleas relate to the implementation of the top court's 2006 verdict on police reforms that recommended steps like separation of investigation and law and order duties.
After 2006, the top court also passed another set of directions, including no ad hoc or interim appointment to the post of DGP by the state governments.
The Union Public Service Commission, in consultation with a state government and other stakeholders, will have to prepare a list of three senior police officers and the state can appoint any one of them as DGP, the top court then said.
Bhushan and others have alleged the apex court guidelines were being flouted by various state governments.
'There has been rampant corruption in the appointment of police chiefs… rampant," Bhushan said. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK
view comments
First Published:
July 28, 2025, 20:30 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
23 minutes ago
- Hans India
Mass burial case: Govt doesn't have agenda to protect or trap anyone, says G Parameshwara
Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara on Thursday said that the Congress-led government in Karnataka has no agenda to either protect or frame anyone in connection with the mass grave allegations reported from a prominent Hindu pilgrimage centre in Mangaluru district. Speaking to reporters in Bengaluru, Parameshwara said, "Why did we set up the Special Investigation Team (SIT)? As a government, we want the truth to come out, and in that context, we constituted the SIT. Once the SIT completes its investigation and submits the report, the facts of the case will be revealed. That's all we want - and that's what the public wants as well." He emphasised that there is no political motive behind the move. "There is no agenda to shield anyone or trap anyone on the part of the government. No one should view this with the wrong perception," Parameshwara appealed. "My request is simple... We have already stated that the investigation should be transparent. That is the only agenda of the government," he underlined. Commenting on the controversy surrounding SIT Chief DGP Pronab Mohanty's name being shortlisted for central deputation while the investigation into the mass grave case is progressing, Parameshwara said, "There are many misconceptions. The government had decided to appoint a DGP-rank officer to head the investigation, and in that backdrop, Pronab Mohanty was appointed as the SIT chief. Now, if his name appears on the central deputation list, no final decision has been taken yet." "The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR), which functions under the Chief Minister, will decide whether to send him on central deputation. We have not made any decision yet. False posts are being circulated on this issue; this is inappropriate. What interest does the government have in this?" he asked. In response to a question, Parameshwara stated, "Until the investigation is complete and the report is submitted, we will not speak on the matter. No one should speculate. We are not driven by curiosity - we only want the truth to emerge. Until then, we won't comment further." Meanwhile, the SIT team has completed the excavation of five burial sites as of Wednesday. The team is expected to dig four more sites on Thursday. SIT Chief Mohanty is stationed in Dharmasthala to oversee the operation. He has stated that, so far, the SIT has not recovered any evidence from the burial sites during digging. On July 11, the unidentified complainant in the case, who had claimed that he was forced to bury several bodies of women who were raped and murdered in Dharmasthala village, appeared before a court in Karnataka's Mangaluru district and recorded his statement. He requested that the police exhume the bodies in his presence. He further alleged that the bodies of the women showed clear signs of sexual assault. They were found without clothes or undergarments and bore injuries, suggesting violent acts.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘There can be no Hindu terrorists': BJP leaders hail Malegaon verdict
BJP leaders on Thursday welcomed the 2008 Malegaon blast verdict, which acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Mumbai: Former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur leaves the special NIA court after a hearing on the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in Mumbai, May 8, 2025. (PTI Photo) (PTI05_08_2025_000100B)(PTI) Speaking to ANI, BJP MP from Gorakhpur, Ravi Kishan, expressed sympathy for the accused and their families. 'We don't know whether to be happy or sad. My sister, Sadhvi Pragya, used to sit next to me in Parliament. Her entire body is paralysed. What must the accused and their families have gone through, having faced such false allegations... Who will return those 17 years?' Ravi Kishan said. 'The Congress, which coined the term 'Bhagwa Terrorism', must answer. They are all accountable... They have to answer to 100 crore Hindus — with what proof did they start speaking of 'Bhagwa Terrorism'? Who was the mastermind behind this narrative?... The Home Minister said it yesterday, and it has been proven today that a Hindu cannot be a terrorist... We will demand an answer in Parliament on the use of the term 'Bhagwa Terrorism',' he added. Pragya Singh Thakur, a former BJP MP, was among the seven acquitted by the special NIA court in Mumbai in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. Special NIA Judge AK Lahoti said that there was no "cogent and reliable" evidence to justify a conviction. The court observed that the prosecution "has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt." The blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Malegaon, Maharashtra, claimed six lives and left around 100 injured. What did the court say about the alleged 2008 bike blast? Judge AK Lahoti, while delivering the verdict, stated that the prosecution could not establish that the bomb was placed in the specific motorcycle, according to ANI. 'The bike allegedly involved in the blast did not have a clear chassis number. Prosecution could not prove that it was in (Pragya Thakur's) possession immediately before the blast,' the court observed. Commenting on the investigation, the court noted significant lapses, saying, 'No sketch of the spot was done by the investigation officer while doing the panchnama. No fingerprint, dump data or anything else was collected for the spot. The samples were contaminated, so the reports can't be conclusive and are not reliable.' Regarding co-accused Lt Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit, the court said, 'There is no evidence of storing or assembling the explosives in Shrikant Prasad Purohit's residence,' leading to his acquittal as well. On the applicability of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court ruled that it could not be invoked in this case, stating, 'Sanction was not taken as per rules.' It further remarked, "Both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective." The court also found inconsistencies in the reported number of injured, concluding that it was 95 and not 101 as previously claimed. It mentioned irregularities in medical documentation, noting 'manipulation in some medical certificates.' The case had been handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2011, after initially being investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). All accused had been out on bail prior to the verdict.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
SC Sets Aside Telangana HC Order, Gives Speaker 3 Months On BRS MLAs Defection Case
The court made it clear that the Speaker, while adjudicating disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, acts as a tribunal and does not enjoy constitutional immunity. The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker to decide within three months on the disqualification petitions filed against ten Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who had defected to the ruling Congress party. A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai observed that political defections remain a pressing issue in the country and have the potential to destabilise democratic processes if left unchecked. The court allowed the appeal filed by BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, who had sought a direction to the Speaker for a time-bound decision on the pending disqualification pleas. Setting aside the Telangana High Court division bench's order from November 22, 2024, which had interfered with an earlier single judge ruling, the apex court emphasised the need for prompt resolution in such matters. 'We have referred to various parliamentary speeches, including those by Rajesh Pilot and Devendra Nath Munshi, to emphasise that entrusting disqualification proceedings to the Speaker was aimed at avoiding delays that may occur before courts," Chief Justice Gavai noted while reading the judgment. The court made it clear that the Speaker, while adjudicating disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, acts as a tribunal and does not enjoy constitutional immunity. It further directed the Speaker not to permit the MLAs to delay the proceedings and said that adverse inferences could be drawn if any attempts to protract the process are made. The verdict was reserved on April 3, and a detailed judgment is expected to follow. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
