Contempt plea filed in SC against U.P., Punjab for having ‘acting’ DGPs

In 2006, the Supreme Court had held in its Prakash Singh judgment that there was no such ‘concept’ of an ‘acting DGP’

A view of Supreme Court of India. | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma.

A lawyer has sought contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court against the Uttar Pradesh and Punjab Governments for appointing “acting” Directors-General of Police (DGPs) in “complete violation” of apex court orders since 2006.

In 2006, the Supreme Court had held in its Prakash Singh judgment that there was no such “concept” of an “acting Director-General of Police”.

Besides, the court had laid down that DGPs should have a minimum tenure of two years in office. This, the court had held, was necessary to protect the office of the DGP from political influences or pressures.

In his contempt petition, petitioner-advocate Brajesh Singh has challenged the appointment of Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Gaurav Yadav as the acting DGP of Punjab. He has been continuing as acting DGP for the past eight months, it said.

The petition said the then incumbent in office, V.K. Bhawra, was removed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government before he could complete the minimum two years in office.

“In September, the State government removed Mr. Bhawra from the responsibilities of DGP without assigning any valid reasons much before the completion of his two years’ tenure and before his superannuation in May 2024,” the petition said.

Similarly, the petition accused Uttar Pradesh of successively appointing acting DGPs.

The petition said the State’s regular DGP Mukesh Goel was removed in May last year much prior to his superannuation in February 2024. IPS officer D.S. Chauhan was appointed in place of Mr. Goel.

But the State had repeated its act on Mr. Chauhan’s retirement by appointing Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, as acting DGP.

“Successive appointment of acting DGP by Uttar Pradesh is in complete violation of Supreme Court orders,” the petition said.

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is also a respondent in the contempt plea.

“The UPSC being the empanelling authority in terms of Prakash Singh judgment for appointment of full time DGP, was under obligations to ensure compliance of the Supreme Court directions… UPSC wilfully and deliberately committed contempt,” the petition said.