Supreme Court Halts Odisha DGP Selection Amid PIL Challenge
The Supreme Court has ordered the Union Public Service Commission to postpone the finalization of Odisha's Director General of Police selection. This comes after a Public Interest Litigation challenged the process, citing violations of previous Supreme Court directives.
Key takeaways
- The Supreme Court has directed the UPSC to defer the finalization of Odisha's Director General of Police selection until August 18.
- A Public Interest Litigation filed by Senior Advocate P Chidambaram challenges the DGP selection process for violating Supreme Court directives.
- The amicus curiae in the Prakash Singh matter supported the PIL, stating the selection process contravened the established guidelines.
- Odisha's Advocate General denied any breach of norms and questioned the PIL's maintainability.
The Supreme Court has instructed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to halt the final selection of the Director General of Police (DGP) for the State of Odisha. The directive came on Thursday, August 13, with the Court specifying that the selection should not be finalized until August 18. On this later date, the Court is scheduled to hear a petition that contests the ongoing DGP selection procedure.
The Court requested the UPSC to postpone a meeting, reportedly scheduled for the same day the directive was issued, until the subsequent hearing. Senior Advocate P Chidambaram brought a Public Interest Litigation before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India. This petition challenges the DGP selection process, arguing it contravenes Supreme Court directives established in the Prakash Singh judgment.
Chidambaram informed the bench that the UPSC was scheduled to meet on the day of the hearing to finalize the candidate. He further alleged that an officer received a promotion the day prior to the Supreme Court hearing, an action he contended was intended to influence the panel sent to the UPSC.
Conversely, Odisha Advocate General Pitambar Acharya refuted claims of any violation of established norms and questioned the appropriateness of a Public Interest Litigation being used for a service-related dispute. The bench itself expressed reservations about the maintainability of the PIL, with Chief Justice Surya Kant noting that no officer directly affected by the process had approached the Court.
The Court then sought the perspective of Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who serves as the amicus curiae in the original Prakash Singh matter. The amicus supported the petition, asserting that the current selection process deviates from the guidelines set forth in the Prakash Singh ruling. Considering the amicus's stance, the Court directed the counsel representing the UPSC to defer their meeting.
Sources reviewed
Project Chintan independently synthesized and analyzed information cross-checked across the sources listed above.
Related stories
Rahul Gandhi Challenges 'Fishing Inquiry' into Asset Allegations in Supreme Court
India's Centre Agrees to Rail Concessions for Acid Attack Survivors
Supreme Court Halts Odisha DGP Selection Process Amidst Legal Challenge