Supreme Court to hear in May pleas for implementation of its 2006 verdict on police reforms

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday said it will hear in May pleas seeking implementation of its 2006 verdict on police reforms that recommended steps like separation of investigation and law and order duties.

Later, the top court also passed another set of directions, that included no ad hoc or interim appointment to the post of Director General of Police (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 had said.

On Tuesday, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Dushyant Dave told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan that 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.

"State after state is refusing to comply with the judgment and directions," Dave alleged, adding if these reformatory directions are not implemented then "we will lose everything for which we stand".

He said a very serious situation is developing as every second state is taking law into their own hands on the appointment of a DGP.

The bench then directed that a contempt plea be served on the Jharkhand government and listed all pleas for hearing in the week commencing May 5.

Earlier, Bhushan referred to one of the directions mentioned in the 2006 verdict on the Prakash Singh case and said it was recommended that there should be separation of police functions of investigation and maintaining law and order.

Bhushan said law and order is an executive function and investigation is part of the criminal justice delivery system.

While deciding the PIL filed by two former DGPs, Prakash Singh and N K Singh, in 2006, the apex court issued several directions, including that state police chiefs will have a fixed tenure of two years.

It had said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent. The top court had also said that officers such as DGPs and superintendents of police should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.

The court had ordered the setting up of a state security commission to ensure that the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police. It had also ordered the setting up of a Police Establishment Board to decide and make recommendations on transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of police officers of and below the rank of DSPs.

It had ordered the setting up of a Police Complaints Authority in each state to look into complaints against officers of and above the rank of SP in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody.

A National Security Commission is needed to be set up at the Union level to prepare a panel for the selection and placement of chiefs of the Central Police Organisations with a minimum tenure of two years, the apex court had said.