How can incumbent DGP sit in meeting of his own empanelment? Supreme Court to Nagaland

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Nagaland government to prepare a fresh list of eligible IPS officers for appointment to post of Director General of Police for the State [Prakash Singh and ors vs Union of India]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli orally remarked that the incumbent DGP must be allowed to retire in peace rather than be re-appointed. The Bench took objection to present DGP T John Longkumer sitting in the official meeting for empanellment of IPS officers for the post of DGP since Longkumer was also recommended to the post. "We will let you set your house in order. Tell your Chief Secretary that we are taking a dim view of him [DGP] sitting in the meeting for his empanelment," Justice Chandrachud remarked. The State government was directed to keep in mind the deficiencies pointed out by the Union Public Service Commission earlier with respect to its previous list. .Longkumer was appointed DGP on June 27, 2018 for a three-year term, but was given an extension till August this year. He was recently recommended for a six-month extension, after the Central government had approved his inter-cadre deputation for the period beyond his retirement. Longkumer is from the Chhattisgarh cadre of the Indian Police Service. The petitioners had moved the present plea towards implementation of the police reforms ordered in the Prakash Singh judgment. The counsel for the petitioners submitted on Monday that the incumbent DGP continuing in office amounted to violation of the the top court's judgment. "Gentleman continues to be in office. This evokes nothing but anger. it is nothing but subversion of judgment ... I understand that post of DGP cannot be vacant, but his staying in office is subversion of rule of law. Let appropriate directions be issued today itself ... Earlier DGP's tenure was less than 2 years. It shocks my conscience that norms are being violated," it was argued. The counsel added that in the previous list, only politically influential persons were recommended. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the lead petitioner in Prakash Singh judgment that directed a slew of reforms for the police in India, stated,"The DGP office is meant to be independent of political influence. Their move is completely contrary to Prakash Singh. If he gets repeated extensions, of course he will be in the good books of the govt. Let the main matter [non-implementation of the judgment] also be listed and heard."The Bench then noted that Longkumer did not have the 30 years experience necessary for the top post, and was an officer on deputation.Counsel for Nagaland responded saying, "The main problem in Nagaland is we do not have [enough] IPS officers from outside the State. We have to bring officers on deputation." Regarding his presence at the meeting to determine empanellment of names for the DGP post, the counsel submitted that situation was a 'peculiar' one.Justice Kohli then opined,"You are busy in justifying why he was required to be appointed but not explaining if the norms were followed or not." "What is the need to keep him for another 6 months. Let him retire in peace. Why the extension?" Justice Chandrachud added.The top court in its order then stated,"... we are of the considered view that in view of the communications issued by the UPSC, the Nagaland government must immediately send the list of empanelled officers for the DGP post. The list shall be drawn up in accordance with law after duly bearing in mind the deficiencies pointed out by the UPSC. This is to be done no later than by October 31." The matter was listed next for December 9, with liberty to the petitioner's counsel to make a fresh mentioning in case of non-compliance. .[Read order].[Follow our coverage of the hearing]