Rupin Sharma (Nagaland Police website/nagapol.gov.in )
Kohima, June 21 (MExN): The Nagaland Law Students’ Federation (NLSF) has stated that former DGP Rupin Sharma’s removal from the post is a “clear violation” of a Supreme Court order that mandates a “2-years reign” for a DGP, whether ‘officiating or in-charge.’
The Federation, thus, implored the ‘political body’ to “reinstate him and let him complete his full tenure (in charge DGP Chitranjan Singh competed two years term) so as to earn the support and trust of the people.”
Simultaneously, it stated that the Supreme Court judgment and statutory provisions are “vitiated and violated by people’s representatives and should be held accountable for any subsequent cause of action legally and ethically,” stated a press release from NLSF signed by its President, Imliben Lemtur, General Secretary, Medochütuo Kiewhuo and Speaker, Nungshimeren Jamir.
The NLSF alleged that the removal of Sharma and appointing an officer junior to him was a “premeditated move to usurp” a competent officer, who it held, has amassed public support for playing by the rules.
According to the NLSF, the appointment of the junior officer “overrides the seniority promotion rules and is a clear case of manipulation of established rules and statutory provisions.”
“The appointment of a junior officer who hasn’t attained ADGP rank will weaken the police administration and functioning of the state executive agency,” it maintained.
The NLSF noted that with regards to the Chief Secretary and DGP matters, the SC has “clearly stated” that a Chief Secretary can be “shifted” if s/he “doesn’t enjoy the confidence of the council of ministers as it is answerable to the people in administration.”
However, a DGP “cannot be merely removed on that basis as it is concerned in the probes of crimes, law and order, not general administration.”
“There is a huge difference in the roles and unless a DGP breaches some statutory rules or constitutional provisions he can’t be removed as per whims and fancies of the revolving political chair,” asserted the NLSF.
Expressing outrage, the NLSF stated that the “prestigious chair and established provisions” are not meant to be used as a “dining table” for political representatives to bring in their favoured persons. “The rule of law is supreme and shall prevail,” the Federation asserted.
The word ‘inexperience’ is only “hypocrisy,” observed the NLSF when a “much junior officer is appointed as the executive agency.”
“The people faith should not be used as leverage to gain vested political mileages, the result will be catastrophic as people are exposed to the civil movements, revolutions, Arab springs, and the people voices are suppressed to such an extent that a spark will blaze on dynamic changing scenario.”
The first prescription of the rule of law, the NLSF reiterated is “to appoint an officiating DGP with regular full fledged DGP and the current instant is appointment of another officiating/in charged DGP which is fishy in nature basing on its appointment nature breaching protocols and rules.”
Therefore, “The rule of law should not become casualty to the whims and fancies of the political executives.”