While the constitution of the State Security Commission (SSC) by the State Government on Saturday ushers in much-needed police reforms, the government’s silence on the other directives of the Supreme Court is disconcerting.
Andhra Pradesh has now implemented only two of the seven binding directives of the apex court, delivered in the Prakash Singh case on police reforms.
The only other directive implemented by the State is that of setting up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) — which decides transfers, postings and promotions of officers of and below the rank of DSPs and transfers above the rank of DSPs.
Other SC directives
The other directives in State Government’s purview include a fixed two-year tenure to the chief of the police force; a minimum tenure of two years for SPs and SHOs; separation of investigation and law-and-order functions; setting up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the State and district levels. The seventh directive — on setting a National Security Commission — is the responsibility of the Central government.
The State government has chosen to maintain a studied silence on the other directives though the Supreme Court had recently asked all the States to file affidavits on its implementation.
DGP’s case
Interestingly, the government order (dated 29-09-2012) appointing DGP V. Dinesh Reddy does not make a specific mention about him having a fixed tenure of two years.
Incidentally, when Tamil Nadu appointed K. Ramanujam as DGP, the State order too did not make a mention. However, a week later another GO was issued which specified that Mr. Ramanujam would have a fixed tenure of two years, irrespective of his date of superannuation.
What makes Mr. Dinesh Reddy’s case interesting is that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on September 18, 2013 (date of birth September 18, 1953), and if the government goes by the apex court’s orders, he should be retiring only on September 29, 2014.
Mr. Reddy was originally appointed DGP on June 30, 2011, but his appointment was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) following a petition filed by another IPS officer challenging the order.
Later, on the direction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the government chose him again as the DGP from a list of empanelled officers selected by the UPSC and issued the current orders on September 29, 2012.
During the interregnum, he was the in-charge/officiating DGP.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Police Reform: AP fails to get full marks: पुलिस रिफार्म मामले में आंध्र-प्रदेश पुलिस फिसड्डी साबित..
While the constitution of the State Security Commission (SSC) by the State Government on Saturday ushers in much-needed police reforms, the government’s silence on the other directives of the Supreme Court is disconcerting.
Andhra Pradesh has now implemented only two of the seven binding directives of the apex court, delivered in the Prakash Singh case on police reforms.
The only other directive implemented by the State is that of setting up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) — which decides transfers, postings and promotions of officers of and below the rank of DSPs and transfers above the rank of DSPs.
Other SC directives
The other directives in State Government’s purview include a fixed two-year tenure to the chief of the police force; a minimum tenure of two years for SPs and SHOs; separation of investigation and law-and-order functions; setting up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the State and district levels. The seventh directive — on setting a National Security Commission — is the responsibility of the Central government.
The State government has chosen to maintain a studied silence on the other directives though the Supreme Court had recently asked all the States to file affidavits on its implementation.
DGP’s case
Interestingly, the government order (dated 29-09-2012) appointing DGP V. Dinesh Reddy does not make a specific mention about him having a fixed tenure of two years.
Incidentally, when Tamil Nadu appointed K. Ramanujam as DGP, the State order too did not make a mention. However, a week later another GO was issued which specified that Mr. Ramanujam would have a fixed tenure of two years, irrespective of his date of superannuation.
What makes Mr. Dinesh Reddy’s case interesting is that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on September 18, 2013 (date of birth September 18, 1953), and if the government goes by the apex court’s orders, he should be retiring only on September 29, 2014.
Mr. Reddy was originally appointed DGP on June 30, 2011, but his appointment was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) following a petition filed by another IPS officer challenging the order.
Later, on the direction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the government chose him again as the DGP from a list of empanelled officers selected by the UPSC and issued the current orders on September 29, 2012.
During the interregnum, he was the in-charge/officiating DGP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment