UPSC Tightens Guidelines for Appointment of State DGPs

Primary Source: The Hindu

Relevance: GS2, Indian Polity, Law, Governance, Role of Judiciary, Governance – Role of civil services in a democracy, Transparency, Accountability, Role of the UPSC and other bodies, Federalism, Police Reform, Role of Judiciary

Click here for Daily Current Affairs

Prepp Prelims Booster: Role of the UPSC and other bodies

Prepp Mains Booster: Governance – Role of civil services in a democracy

Why in the news?

• The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has updated its criteria for appointing State Directors General of Police (DGPs).
• Only officers with a minimum of six months left before retirement are eligible for the DGP role.
• IPS officers on central deputation won't be assessed for State DGP posts if the Centre communicates non-availability.

Revised UPSC Guidelines – A Contextual Background

• Supreme Court Verdict on Police Reforms (2006): The article references a significant Supreme Court case from 2006 regarding police reforms in India.
• The court's directives included the procedure for the appointment of DGPs, intended to insulate the higher echelons of the police force from political interference.
• UPSC's Role in DGP Appointments: Following the Supreme Court verdict, in 2009, the UPSC formulated guidelines for the appointment of DGPs, which included criteria based on service length, a good service record, and a range of experiences.
• The UPSC's role is to create a shortlist of eligible officers from which the state government makes the final selection.
• State Appointment Practices: Some states have reportedly appointed acting DGPs or officers with full additional charges, bypassing the established UPSC process.
• This has been a contentious issue, with claims that it undermines the UPSC's authority and the principles laid out by the Supreme Court's police reforms.
• Central-States Tension: The issue reflects ongoing tension between the center and the states over the appointment and management of All India Services officers.
• The Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), and Indian Forest Service (IFoS) are all central services, but their members are deployed in state cadres, often leading to a tug-of-war over control and deputation.

What are the Key Changes?

• Service Requirement for Eligibility: Only officers who have at least six months of service remaining before retirement will now be considered for the position of DGP.
• Experience Criteria Relaxation: The experience requirement for eligibility has been reduced from a minimum of 30 years of service to 25 years.
• Cap on Shortlisted Candidates: The number of officers shortlisted for the DGP post cannot exceed three. However, this can be fewer in "exceptional circumstances."
• Voluntary Inclusion: Officers will only be included in the selection panel if they have expressed their willingness to be considered for the position.
• Exclusion of Officers on Central Deputation: IPS officers who are on central deputation will not be considered for a State DGP’s position if the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) communicates that these officers cannot be relieved for the state position.

Reasons for Addressing the Loopholes

• Appointments Close to Retirement: States were appointing officers as DGPs who were on the verge of retirement. This allowed for the potential extension of their service beyond the typical tenure, possibly for reasons other than merit or capability.
• Bypassing UPSC Process with Acting DGPs: Some states were appointing acting DGPs, or DGPs with "full additional charge," as a means to circumvent the UPSC's empanelment and selection process.
• Central Deputation Conflict: There was a lack of clarity about the availability of IPS officers on central deputation for state appointments.
• States’ Preferences Overruling UPSC Recommendations: Some states had shown a preference for certain officers, disregarding the UPSC's selection panel. This undermined the authority of the UPSC and the integrity of the selection process.
• Varying Standards of Eligibility: The previous requirement of 30 years of service could exclude potentially competent officers who had not yet reached that service length but were otherwise qualified.
• Lack of Explicit Consent from Officers: Prior guidelines did not make it clear whether the inclusion of officers in the panel considered their willingness to serve as DGP, potentially leading to the selection of candidates who were not interested in the position.

Significance of the Revised Guidelines

• Promotion of Merit and Competence: By requiring a minimum of six months of service before retirement, the amendments ensure that the appointed DGP has sufficient time to implement policies and bring about effective changes.
• Standardization and Fairness: The amendments aim to standardize the appointment process across states and introduce a fair system that is less susceptible to manipulation or state-specific preferences that could undermine the uniformity and fairness of the selection process.
• Enhanced Accountability and Transparency: The new guidelines are intended to make the appointment process more transparent and accountable by closing loopholes that allowed for the circumvention of the established procedure, which could have led to appointments based on favouritism rather than qualification.
• Alignment with Supreme Court Directives: These amendments also align with the directives of the Supreme Court regarding police reforms and the selection process for DGPs, reinforcing the rule of law and the court’s authority in ensuring that police leadership is competent and stable.
• Fostering Willingness and Commitment: By including only those officers who are willing to be on the panel, the UPSC ensures that the candidates are committed to the role of DGP, which is crucial for maintaining high standards of policing and leadership within the police force.
• Clarifying Central Deputation Rules: By clarifying the position on officers on central deputation, the guidelines help to manage the human resources of All India Services more effectively, ensuring that officers are available where they are most needed, whether in the state or at the central level.
• Broader Pool of Candidates: Reducing the service requirement from 30 years to 25 years expands the pool of eligible candidates, potentially bringing in fresh perspectives and dynamic leadership to the role of DGP.

Criteria for IPS Officers’ Experience for State DGP Roles

• The UPSC's revised guidelines lay out specific experience requirements for IPS officers to be eligible for heading a State Police department.
• An IPS officer must have at least ten years of experience in key policing areas:
  • Law and order
  • Crime branch
  • Economic offences wing
  • Intelligence wing
• Additionally, experience through deputation to central agencies is also considered:
• Intelligence Bureau (IB)
• Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)
• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
• In 2021, the Union government intended to amend the IAS (Cadre) Rules to allow central deputation of IAS, IPS, and IFoS officers without state consent.
• The proposed amendment faced opposition from states and was not implemented.
• The need for the proposed change was attributed to a shortage of All India Services officers available for central deputation, with states not sponsoring enough officers and a reluctance from officers to move to central government roles.

Conclusion

The UPSC has taken steps to ensure a more stringent and transparent selection process for State DGPs. The amendments attempt to balance the autonomy of state governments with the Union government's oversight, particularly in managing all India services like the IPS.

(*Click this link to read prelims specific weekly current affairs articles)

FAQs

MCQs

Question: With reference to India, consider the following pairs: (UPSC 2023)

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(c) All three

(d) None

Question: Consider the following statements: (UPSC 2023)

1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.
2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention
3. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence.

How many of the above statements are correct?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(c) All three

(d) None