English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court rejects plea of five states to appoint DGPs from outside UPSC panel

Published

on

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (Wednesday, Jan 16) dismissed the pleas of five States to let them appoint police chiefs through an internal state committee rather than from the panel of three recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

The Supreme Court order issued last year on selection and appointment of Director Generals of Police (DGPs) directed States to “ensure that the Director-General of Police (DGP) is appointed through a merit-based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years”.

The apex court was hearing applications of various State governments — Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar — seeking implementation of their local laws regarding selection and appointment of DGPs.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said that the earlier directions of the court on selection and appointment of DGPs were issued in larger public interest and to protect the police officials from political interference.

On December 12 last year, the apex court extended till January 31 the tenures of the present DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and agreed to hear the states’ pleas seeking to implement their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of the police chief.

DGPs Suresh Arora (Punjab) and BS Sandhu (Haryana) were due to retire on December 31 last year and will now remain in office till January 31 according to the earlier order of the apex court.

Several states were seeking modification of the apex court’s earlier order directing all the states to mandatorily take the assistance of the UPSC in short-listing the names for appointing DGPs.

The top court, on July 3 last year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs.

It said the states will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent.

The UPSC will then prepare a panel and intimate the states, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list.

Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal told the court that they have already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms.

The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and NK Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including the setting up of a state security commission to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police.

It said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and superintendents of police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.

However, when states enacted laws providing a mechanism for DGP selection, the apex court on July 3 last year kept the state laws in abeyance.

It earlier passed directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP.

The directions had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain states have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them to get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years.

The court had also cautioned the states against conceiving of the “idea of appointing any person on the post of DGP on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police”.

The apex court, on September 8, 2017, agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by states and Union territories.

In the 2006 judgment, the Supreme Court said the DGP of the state “shall be selected by the State government from amongst the three senior most officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force”. The court also said that once the DGP was selected, he should have a minimum tenure of two years.”

The court also said that the states should send their proposals with regard to the appointment of the next DGP to the UPSC at least three months before the date of retirement of the incumbent.

In its order, the Supreme Court had also laid down the guidelines for the removal of the DGPs saying that a state government may remove a DGP after consultation with the “State Security Commission consequent upon any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules” or if the DGP has been convicted in a court of law in a criminal offence or for corruption.

India News

Case registered against Mamata Banerjee over controversial 2025 religion remark

A formal police case has been registered against Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee in Siliguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleges that her 2025 “Ganda Dharm” remark targeted Hinduism and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

A formal police complaint has been lodged against Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The legal action stems from an alleged derogatory remark regarding Hinduism made during an Eid congregation in Kolkata in 2025.

The case was registered following a complaint filed by a local lawyer, Rinki Chatterjee, who alleged that the former Chief Minister’s comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus globally.

Legal charges and complaint details

The police have invoked multiple sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Banerjee, including Section 351(1) for criminal intimidation, Section 352 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and Section 353 for promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different communities.

According to the complaint, the controversy traces back to an Eid event organized on Kolkata’s iconic Red Road in 2025. While delivering a speech targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Banerjee purportedly referred to the version of Hinduism championed by the political rival as “Ganda Dharm” (filthy religion).

Chatterjee stated in her complaint that labeling Sanatan Dharma in such a manner at a religious gathering was “absolutely unacceptable”. The complainant also pointed to other instances where senior TMC leaders allegedly targeted Hinduism, adding that Banerjee made indirect threats to the Hindu community during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign to influence voters through intimidation.

Political responses to the FIR

The reported statements had previously drawn sharp criticism from the state BJP leadership last year, including strong objections from current Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari. However, this FIR represents the first formal legal action taken regarding the speech.

When approached for a response, Atri Sharma, a lawyer and general secretary of the TMC’s Darjeeling unit, declined to comment officially as a party spokesperson. However, he noted that many within the party internal circles found the remarks inappropriate at the time they were spoken. Sharma acknowledged that holding a high public office required restraint and affirmed that every individual holds the moral right to pursue legal remedies.

Continue Reading

India News

Enforcement Directorate raids former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s residence in money laundering probe

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday carried out searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and 11 other locations in connection with a money-laundering probe registered in 2024.

Published

on

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday conducted extensive searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The action comes as part of an ongoing money-laundering investigation, with the central probe agency executing simultaneous raids at 12 separate locations across the state under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Broad Crackdown in Financial Probe

The central agency’s operations focused significantly on Vijayan’s rented residence in the state capital, alongside eleven other locations, including premises in Kochi, Kozhikode, Kannur, and Bengaluru. This major enforcement action was initiated shortly after the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition on Tuesday, which had been filed by Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL) seeking to quash the ongoing ED proceedings.

The roots of the financial investigation trace back to a PMLA case registered in 2024. The core allegation involves an estimated illegal payment of ₹1.72 crore made between 2017 and 2019 by a private entity, Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL), to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena.

According to investigators, the financial transactions took place despite the IT firm allegedly rendering no services to the private company. Apart from the financial probe agency’s scrutiny, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is also independently conducting an inquiry into the wider financial transactions of the matter.

Political Developments

The searches also covered locations linked to other political and executive figures associated with the matter, including premises connected to senior CMRL executives. While the ruling party has previously described the investigations as politically motivated, the central agency has intensified its probe following the high court’s refusal to grant interim relief to the private firm. The case has sparked intense political debate, with opposition parties using the findings to allege financial irregularities, while local party leaders maintain that the transactions were part of a legitimate business arrangement.

Continue Reading

India News

IPL 2026 Qualifier 1: Rajat Patidar, Virat Kohli shatter playoff records as RCB crush GT to reach final

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru advanced to their second consecutive IPL final after a historic 92-run demolition of Gujarat Titans in Qualifier 1, powered by Rajat Patidar’s breathtaking 93*

Published

on

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) created history in the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026 Qualifier 1 against Gujarat Titans (GT), sealing their spot in a second consecutive final with a clinical 92-run victory on Tuesday.

Riding on captain Rajat Patidar’s blistering, unbeaten 93 off just 33 balls, Bengaluru piled up a colossal 254 for 5 in their 20 overs after being asked to bat first at the scenic Dharamsala stadium. The monumental total surpassed the previous playoff benchmark of 233 for 3, set by GT against Mumbai Indians in 2023, making it the highest-ever score in IPL playoff history. In response, a ruthless RCB bowling assault dismantled the Gujarat Titans batting line-up, bowling them out for 162 in 19.3 overs.

Patidar blitzkrieg anchors historic RCB innings

After GT skipper Shubman Gill won the toss and opted to field, RCB’s top order asserted early dominance by racing to 76 for 1 within the powerplay. Venkatesh Iyer provided a quickfire 19 off seven balls, while Devdutt Padikkal struck 30 off 19 deliveries to set a brisk tempo.

The foundation allowed Virat Kohli to maintain the middle-order momentum with a fluent 43 off 25 balls. With this knock, Kohli carved out another historic milestone, becoming the first player in IPL history to accumulate over 600 runs in four consecutive seasons. Jason Holder briefly checked RCB’s charge by removing both Kohli and Padikkal in the 10th over to leave them at 99 for 3.

However, skipper Rajat Patidar took complete control from there on. Surviving two dropped catches early on, Patidar launched a brutal counter-attack, smashing five fours and nine towering sixes at an astonishing strike rate of 281.81. He combined forces with Krunal Pandya, who played a crucial anchoring role with 43 off 28 balls, putting together a blistering 90-run partnership. Patidar turned particularly merciless in the death overs, hammering a massive over from Kulwant Khejroliya as RCB finished their death overs on an absolute high.

Gujarat Titans collapse under scoreboard pressure

Faced with a steep mountain to climb, the Gujarat Titans chase imploded right from the start, losing five wickets inside the powerplay against a lethal pace battery. Openers Sai Sudharsan and skipper Shubman Gill were dismissed in the third and fourth overs respectively.

Sudharsan, the tournament’s leading run-scorer, suffered a bizarre and unfortunate dismissal when his bat slipped during a cut shot, knocking back his own stumps to be out hit-wicket off Jacob Duffy. Gill followed shortly after, cleaned up by an excellent delivery from Bhuvneshwar Kumar.

Jos Buttler offered a brief, aggressive resistance by hitting four boundaries and two sixes in a quick 29, but Australian pacer Josh Hazlewood exacted quick revenge by clean-bowling him in the fifth over. From a precarious position, the Titans slipped further as Jacob Duffy tore through the middle order, dismissing Washington Sundar and Rashid Khan.

Rahul Tewatia was the lone warrior for the Titans, waging a solitary battle to smash a fighting 68. His aggressive hitting brought up the team’s hundred in the 13th over and dragged the side past the 150-mark. However, the target proved far too distant. Krunal Pandya claimed the final wicket in the final over, dismissing GT’s tailender Mohammed Siraj—who was caught by Tim David—to bundle out GT for 162, securing the second-largest victory margin in IPL playoff history for RCB.

While RCB marches straight into the grand finale with ultimate momentum, Gujarat Titans remain alive in the tournament. They will get another opportunity to reach the final when they play the winner of the Eliminator clash between Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals in Qualifier 2.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com