Morung Express News
Dimapur | September 15
A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench, among others, challenging the “illegal appointment or charge” given to T John Longkumer as Director General of Police (DGP) cum Head of Police Force of Nagaland and contending that it was done “in absolute disregard to the directions of the Supreme Court.”
The PIL, filed by the Concerned People of Nagaland through its Convenor, Kahuto Chishi Sumi, listed for hearing on September 14, was postponed as one of the judges rescued from the case. The PIL would be listed sometime next week, sources told The Morung Express.
The petitioner pointed out that the Supreme Court had given specific directions with special emphasis to “impede political interference in the appointment” of DGP in Prakash Singh’s case. Among others, the guidelines from the apex Court stipulated that the States/Union Territories should sent the names of 3 senior most panel/police officers with good service record to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
Thereafter, the UPSC should choose the best among the 3 panels based on merit and seniority and recommend one of them for appointment and the State/UTs should immediately appoint the same.
In the case of Nagaland, the State Government acted “contrary to the directives of the Supreme Court and arbitrarily” and appointed a DGP, who does not meet any eligibility criteria for appointment, the petitioner contended.
Being aggrieved, the present petitioner filed Contempt Petition before the Supreme Court and it closed the case with a direction to the State Respondents to “either comply with their directions or file application for exemption/relaxation before them,” the Court was told.
However, the petitioner alleged that the State Respondents again willfully violated the direction of the Court and continued with the “illegal appointment” 3 years and further extended the DGP’s service.
In the month of March, 2022, prior to the retirement of the incumbent DGP, the State Respondent sent recommendation of 3 panels to UPSC. The UPSC wrote back with a direction that the name of the present DGP be deleted from the list as he is retiring on August 31 2022 and moreover he is not an IPS officer from Nagaland Cadre therefore, he is not eligible, the petitioner stated.
However, the State Respondents sought service extension and inter-state deputation tenure from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs for another 6 months post his superannuation and allowed him to continue as DGP for another 6 months, it highlighted.
Accordingly, the PIL argued that the present DGP is “illegally occupying the seat/post” for the last more than 4 years and 2 months “in deliberate violation of the Supreme Court’s direction.”
As the appointment of DGP cum Head of Police Force (HoPF) warrants public interest, attempt to subvert that process, arbitrarily is abominable, it said.
The “illegal and contemptible action” of the state respondents in giving charge to the private respondent as DGP has compelled the present petitioner to petition the Court for invention in furtherance of Police Reforms set forth in Prakash Singh’s case, it added.
It is in interest of public and in the welfare of the State and India as a country, it added.
