DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DGP)

2. What is ‘acting’ DGP?

An "acting" DGP, or Director General of Police, is someone who temporarily holds the position of the head of a state or union territory's police force in India. An acting DGP is not appointed through the usual selection process and their tenure in the position is meant to be short-term, until a permanent DGP is chosen. This can last for weeks, months, or even longer, depending on the circumstances.

Reason for appointment: Several reasons can lead to the appointment of an acting DGP:

• Retirement of the previous DGP: If the regular DGP retires, an acting DGP might be appointed until a new permanent head is selected and officially takes over.
• Transfer or removal of the previous DGP: If the previous DGP is transferred to another position or removed due to performance issues or other reasons, an acting DGP may be chosen temporarily.
• Delay in selecting a new DGP: Sometimes, the process of selecting a new permanent DGP can take longer than expected, leading to the appointment of an acting DGP in the interim.

Powers and responsibilities: Although not officially appointed, an acting DGP usually holds all the powers and responsibilities of a regular DGP. They oversee the state police force, make key decisions, and are accountable for maintaining law and order.

Currently, several states and union territories in India have acting DGPs, including Uttar Pradesh, which recently appointed its fourth acting DGP in a row. This practice raises concerns about transparency and stability in police leadership, and ongoing debates surround the use of acting DGPs versus appointing permanent heads through established procedures.

3. Who selects state DGP?

The selection process for a state DGP in India involves a collaboration between the state government and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC):

State Government

• Initiates the process by sending a list of five senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to the UPSC.
• These officers must be eligible for promotion to the DGP rank based on seniority, service record, and experience.
• Cannot directly appoint the DGP.

UPSC

• Establishes an empanelment committee chaired by the UPSC Chairman.
• Other members include the Union Home Secretary, the State Chief Secretary, the State DGP, and a Central Armed Police Force head nominated by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• Reviews the list of five officers and selects a panel of three based on merit and seniority.
• Sends the panel back to the state government.

Final Selection

• The state government must choose one of the three officers shortlisted by the UPSC.
• They cannot bypass the panel and appoint someone else.
• The chosen officer becomes the new DGP.

4. What is the minimum tenure of DGP?

There seems to be some confusion regarding the minimum tenure of DGPs in India. The situation is a bit complex due to different guidelines and interpretations

Officially stated minimum tenure

• According to Section 6 of the Police Act, 1861, the Director General of Police (DGP) should have a minimum tenure of one year, subject to their normal date of superannuation.
• However, this provision provides exceptions for transfers before the tenure ends under specific circumstances like proven misconduct, promotion, or public interest contingencies.

Emphasis on longer tenure

• While the law states one year, several Supreme Court judgements and guidelines issued by UPSC highlight the importance of a minimum tenure of two years to ensure stability and continuity in police leadership.
• The UPSC encourages states to choose DGPs with at least two years remaining in service and considers this factor during the selection process.

Current situation

5. What role does the Supreme Court play in police reforms?

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in police reforms, acting as a key driver for change and accountability. 

Issuing Directives

• In 2006, the court issued a set of seven landmark directives based on the recommendations of police commissions. These directives focused on:
  • Reducing political interference: Establishing state security commissions and transparent appointment processes for DGPs.
  • Improving accountability: Setting up Police Complaints Authorities to investigate serious misconduct and ensuring minimum tenure for senior officers.
  • Enhancing professionalism: Separating investigation and law-and-order functions, and improving training and service conditions.

Monitoring Implementation: The court actively monitors the implementation of its directives through periodic hearings and status reports from state governments. It has held states accountable for non-compliance, sometimes even issuing contempt notices.

Highlighting Issues: The court takes suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of issues related to police brutality, custodial deaths, and other human rights violations. It brings these issues to national attention and directs investigations or reforms as needed.

Interpreting Laws: The court interprets existing laws like the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Act to ensure they are applied fairly and uphold fundamental rights.

Examples of Impact: The court's directives have led to the establishment of Police Complaints Authorities in most states, although their effectiveness varies. It has also influenced police training and recruitment practices, with a focus on human rights and community policing.

Challenges and Limitations

• Despite the court's efforts, full implementation of its directives remains a challenge due to:
  • Resistance from state governments: Some states are reluctant to relinquish control over the police or invest in necessary reforms.
  • Lack of resources: Implementing reforms often requires funding for infrastructure, training, and personnel, which may be constrained.
  • Social and political complexities: Addressing issues like political interference and deep-rooted biases within the police system requires sustained efforts at various levels.