The People's Democratic Alliance (PDA) Government of Nagaland appears to be a stickler to established procedure and criteria. This, in a nutshell, would explain the alacrity of the missives by those at the helm of state’s affairs to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking removal of the State’s top cop.
The action, as per their justification, was ‘executed’ by the executive branch of the Government for the sake of ‘probity’ of office and in ‘public interest.’
There has been a huge public outcry since. The reactions, obviously, were not guided by these procedural dilemma but on face value - the apparent goodwill generated by the incumbent DGP in his current position as well as earlier engagements.
Incidentally, more documents began to surface thereafter indicating that the decision to replace the incumbent Director General of Police (DGP) was taken at political and executive level. The missives by Nagaland Chief Minister, Deputy CM and Chief Secretary were almost identical both in intent and spirit.
The concerns and utmost keenness for public welfare are indeed a rare departure and commendable. The public, even the section of the media, either oblivious or often not in the privy of such ‘laid down procedures,’ misrepresented the same and got needlessly alarmed, implied the Deputy CM in a clarification.
The State Government’s effort “have been completely twisted in the media,” he said reiterating that the letter to MHA was sent “considering the shortage of IPS Officers in the senior level as well as for the post of DGP.”
“The State Government on multiple occasions in the past also have approached the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for a suitable and Senior Officer to hold the post of DGP in Nagaland in the larger interest of the Department and the State,” he claimed, adding that it is the “direct responsibility of the State Government to select a suitable officer in the overall interest of the Public of the State.”
Citing MHA guidelines, the missives pointed to the criterion that an IPS officer should have completed 30 years of service to hold the post of DGP. The present Nagaland DGP, in service only for 26 years, was appointed as a “stop-gap arrangement,” it added.
As per the MHA guidelines dated January 15, 1999, dealing with “Principles Regarding Promotion of Member of IPS in the State Cadre,” the criterion for “Officers who have put in 30 years of service” is “Zone of Consideration” for selection as DGP, not necessarily the only norms.
Incidentally, in the case of a Special Category state like Nagaland, the Deputy CM himself admitted that in the past IPS officers, who have completed 28 years have been considered with the approval of the MHA.
The intent of public welfare, thus, is moot, when they seek to replace the incumbent DGP by someone, who by their own admission, also falls below the MHA guidelines.
To appreciate the full magnitude and the content of the momentous request, one has to at look past precedences. Introspection into Supreme Court judgement and directives concerning police reforms may be useful here. In Prakash Singh v. Union of India, the apex court in 2006 had issued seven binding directions to implement for police reforms. It includes, among others, a fixed tenure of two years for top police officers in crucial positions; setting up of a State Security Commission; clear separation of law and order and crime functions of the police; and creation of a Police Establishment Board to regulate police placements. It also called for the creation of new Police Act.
Expectedly, many states, including Nagaland, have been tottering on implementing those reforms and have taken only grudging token steps.
As a stickler for procedure and rules, it is to be seen whether the present government will implement those reforms with such alacrity as the present case.
Else the current issue will be construed as an action in contravention of public interest and taken for other consideration.
Ironically, if the action is followed, the present DGP will be someone who was simultaneously appointed for and removed from his present position purportedly in the interest of “public service.”
