Context:

• The Supreme Court recently issued notices to chief secretaries of 8 states, including Punjab, for appointing acting police chiefs in violation of the top court’s 2006 ruling which requires the DGP to be selected from among the top three senior most police officers in the state for a minimum tenure of at least 2 years.

Key Points:

• The state government however recently passed the Punjab Police Amendment Bill which is currently awaiting presidential assent.
• This legislation aims to amend the existing Punjab Police Act of 2007, particularly regarding the appointment and removal of the Director General of Police (DGP). The bill has generated significant discussion due to its implications for police governance and accountability in the state.

Key provisions of the Bill

Appointment of DGP

One of the most notable changes proposed in the bill is the establishment of a seven-member committee responsible for selecting the DGP. This committee will be chaired by a former chief justice or a retired judge from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The other members include:

• The Chief Secretary of Punjab
• A nominee from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• A nominee from the Punjab Public Service Commission
• The administrative secretary of the home department
• A nominee from the Union Ministry of External Affairs
• A retired DGP of Punjab Police

The committee will shortlist three senior-most officers from a pool of eligible candidates, from which the state government will select one as the DGP.

Removal procedures

• The bill also proposes a mechanism for the removal of the DGP, which departs from previous Supreme Court mandates that required adherence to a specific empanelment process by the UPSC. This change is justified by the Punjab government as necessary to address "the peculiar challenges faced by border states" like Punjab.

Position vis a vis Supreme Court’s 2006 directions

The Punjab Police Amendment Bill significantly contrasts with the 2006 Supreme Court directions regarding police reforms, particularly in the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP). Below are the key differences and implications:

Appointment process

Supreme Court Directions:

• The Supreme Court mandated that states must prepare a list of eligible officers three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP.
• This list is sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which then shortlists three candidates based on seniority, integrity, and service record. The state is required to appoint one of these shortlisted candidates as the new DGP, ensuring a structured and impartial selection process.

Punjab Police Amendment Bill:

• The bill establishes a seven-member committee, chaired by a retired chief justice or judge, to select the DGP.
• This committee will shortlist three senior-most officers from a pool of eligible candidates based on their length of service and experience. This process allows the state government greater discretion in selecting the DGP, deviating from the UPSC's role in vetting candidates.

Legal standing and compliance

Supreme Court Directions:

• The Supreme Court's directives emphasize that any legislation or rule contradicting its guidelines would be deemed unenforceable. This was intended to insulate police appointments from political interference and ensure accountability within law enforcement.

Punjab Police Amendment Bill:

• The bill explicitly states that its provisions will prevail over any court judgments or orders. This undermines the Supreme Court's authority and raises concerns about potential political influence in police appointments, as it effectively nullifies the established procedures designed to prevent such interference.

Tenure and conditions for removal

Supreme Court Directions:

• The Supreme Court specified that a DGP must have a minimum tenure of two years and should not be appointed on an acting basis. This was aimed at providing stability and continuity in police leadership.

Punjab Police Amendment Bill:

• The bill proposes a minimum tenure of three years for the appointed DGP but allows for early removal under specific conditions, such as disciplinary actions or criminal convictions. While it aims to ensure stability, the provision for early removal could still lead to instability if misused.