New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued hearing the matter related to the appointment of Odisha’s regular DGP, where serious allegations of irregularities in the selection process were raised.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate P. Chidambaram alleged “premeditated collusion” between the Odisha Government and the Centre. He questioned the withdrawal of Sushant Nath’s integrity certificate on the basis of a CBI communication that merely said the officer “may be required to be examined” in an investigation.
Chidambaram said Nath had neither been questioned nor named as an accused when his certificate was withheld. Describing the action as “fraud”, he argued that such a communication could not justify Nath’s exclusion.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan cited a November 2012 memorandum of the Union Government, under which vigilance clearance can be denied only when an officer is under suspension, faces pending disciplinary proceedings after a chargesheet, or is being prosecuted in a criminal case. None of these conditions applied to Nath, he submitted.
Bhushan alleged that the exercise was intended to bring lower-ranked officers within the zone of consideration, defeating the purpose of the Prakash Singh judgments, which sought to protect police leadership from excessive executive control.
Chidambaram also questioned the creation of two ex-cadre DGP posts. The Centre had rejected their creation in February but approved them in August, allegedly without adequate reasons. He claimed the short-lived posts facilitated the promotion of two officers before regular vacancies arose.
Appearing for Nath, senior advocate Karuna Nundy highlighted his 32-year record, including anti-Naxal operations and BSF service. She said his performance reports consistently rated him outstanding and contained no adverse integrity remarks.
Consider May 14 List: AmicusSenior advocate Raju Ramachandran, assisting the Court as amicus curiae, recommended that the eligibility list submitted on August 10 be disregarded and that the selection be based on the original list sent on May 14.He said the August list included two officers who had received ex-cadre promotions in circumstances that did not inspire confidence. The Centre had initially rejected the creation of those posts but subsequently changed its position after the Odisha Government renewed its request.
Ramachandran described the exercise as arbitrary and said it appeared designed to bring additional officers into the zone of consideration. He maintained that accepting such a process would undermine the objective of the Prakash Singh rulings – preventing arbitrariness in the appointment of state police chiefs.
Exchange Over Amicus’ Role: The hearing also witnessed a sharp exchange after the Odisha Advocate General remarked that the amicus appeared to be arguing like counsel for the petitioner. Ramachandran objected, saying that in 50 years of practice, no one had accused him of being partisan, and declined to proceed unless the comment was withdrawn.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that such comments could sometimes deprive the Court of valuable assistance. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal defended Ramachandran’s integrity, noting that an amicus is appointed to assist the Court. The Advocate General subsequently clarified that he had profound respect for Ramachandran.
The hearing will resume on Thursday. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the UPSC to defer finalising the three-member panel for appointment of Odisha DGP.
