SC notice to J’khand on plea seeking to quash appointment of DGP

admin

SC notice to J’khand on plea seeking to quash appointment of DGP



RANCHI: While hearing a petition seeking direction to quash the appointment of Jharkhand acting DGP Anurag Gupta, the Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Jharkhand government and the DGP seeking their replies within two weeks.The notices have been issued in connection with a contempt petition, according to which, Gupta was appointed on an ad-hoc basis in contravention of SC verdict, which laid down procedures for the appointment of the DGPs in states.A division bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, has sought a response from Chief Secretary L Khiangte and the acting DGP.Senior Counsel Madhavi Divan, appearing on behalf of petitioner Naresh Makan, submitted that Gupta’s appointment as DGP on ad-hoc basis is a violation of SC’s earlier verdict.“The appointment of Anurag Gupta to the post of Acting DGP of Jharkhand on adhoc basis is in clear violation of the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh vs Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No 310 of 1996 and the order dated 16 January 2023 in the contempt proceedings [Contempt Petition (Civil) No 403 of 2021],” submitted the petitioner’s counsel.The top court has sought a response from the Chief Secretary and acting DGP within two weeks, along with a counter affidavit. The contempt petition, filed by Jamshedpur resident Naresh Makani, stated that Anurag Gupta was appointed as interim DGP replacing Ajay Kumar Singh in contravention of the guidelines laid by the Supreme Court.Anurag Gupta, a 1990- batch IPS officer, was appointed as the acting DGP on July 27, replacing Ajay Kumar Singh. Singh, a 1989-batch IPS officer was appointed DGP on February 15, 2023, for a two-year term through a panel approved by UPSC in pursuance of the apex court order.In between, the state government removed Ajay Kumar Singh and appointed Anurag Gupta as the DGP in-charge, without prior notice. While hearing the case on Friday, the SC expressed its displeasure.



Source link