"No More Acting DGPs Supreme Court Sends a Strong Warning to States Over Police Leadership.:

The Supreme Court of India has once again taken a tough stand against state governments that have been using "acting" Directors General of Police (DGPs) instead of appointing permanent ones. This practice, which many legal experts call a "shortcut," has finally come under the heavy scanner of the top court.

The Loophole Being Used

For years, several states have avoided the mandatory process of sending a shortlist of senior officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Instead, they appoint an "Acting DGP," effectively bypassing the UPSC's screening. This allows states to keep their preferred officers in the top post without following the transparency rules laid down in the landmark Prakash Singh judgment on police reforms.

What the Supreme Court Said

The bench expressed serious concern over how this "acting" culture undermines the independence of the police force. The court emphasized that a DGP must have a fixed tenure and should be selected based on merit and seniority through the proper channel.

The court's message was loud and clear: "States cannot use the 'acting DGP' tag to circumvent the law." By keeping a police chief on a temporary basis, the state government often gains more control over the officer, which directly affects impartial policing.

The Punjab and Haryana Context

This ruling is particularly significant for states like Punjab, where the appointment of the top cop has often been a point of political and legal friction. The court has directed states to ensure that the proposal for the new DGP is sent to the UPSC well in advance—at least three months before the current chief retires—so there is no "gap" that justifies an acting appointment.

Why It Matters to You

Police reforms might sound like a bureaucratic issue, but they directly impact public safety. A permanent DGP with a fixed tenure is less likely to be swayed by political pressure, leading to a more professional and fair police force. The Supreme Court's latest intervention is a major step toward ensuring that the person leading the state's police is chosen by the book, not by political preference.