Centre notifies Single Window System for appointing State DGPs
The Single Window System comprises a detailed check-list and standard easy-to-use formats for the States to send proposals enabling a smooth and expeditious process of empanelment by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), police sources said.
Pointing to major discrepancies in the proposals sent for DGP appointments in the past, the Centre fixed responsibility on the State by asking an officer not below the rank of a Secretary to Government to certify minimum tenure of DGP-rank officers sent for empanelment to the UPSC.
The apex court guidelines and consequent MHA circulars made it clear that an officer considered for appointment as DGP/HoPF should have a minimum residual services of six months from the date of occurrence of vacancy. Also, the States should send proposals to the UPSC at least three months before the vacancy arose or the date of superannuation of the DGP/HoPF.
TN yet to send proposal
In Tamil Nadu, though the vacancy for DGP/HoPF arises on August 30, 2025, when the incumbent police chief Shankar Jiwal is set to retire, the State is yet to send the proposal. Though two officers were not eligible for the top post as per the Supreme Court and MHA guidelines as they would not have a minimum of six months service, the Home Department was still getting their consent in the willingness form, the sources said.
'The Single Window System was notified in the last week of April with detailed check list and annexures making it easy for States to follow. Even if the two officers who are not eligible is cleared by the DGP's office, the Home Department would remove their names from the list as a Secretary-rank officer would have to certify the eligibility criteria. Finally, 8 DGPs in the Level-16 pay matrix would qualify for empanelment and the UPSC would send back three names – Seema Agrawal, Rajiv Kumar and Sandeep Rai Rathore – in the order of seniority,' a senior police officer told The Hindu on Tuesday.
Communicating the Single Window System, the MHA in a circular to States said proposals having major discrepancies would be returned immediately. 'It is requested that suitable instructions may kindly be issued to the concerned department in the State Government responsible for sending proposals for empanelment of officers for appointment to the post of DGP/HoPF of the State to ensure submission of all proposals in future as per the guidelines prescribed for the Single Window System'.
It is pertinent to note the Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions which alleged that the norms prescribed by the apex court in 2006 in the matter of appointing State DGPs were being flouted or not being followed in letter and spirit. A senior advocate moved the top court saying the due process was not followed in the appointment of Jharkhand DGP Anurag Gupta.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Conservationists' fight to protect ‘Perfect Unanimity', the British-era building on the Marina
The building housing the office of Director General of Police (DGP) on the Marina is called 'Perfect Unanimity.' But, about 30 years ago, it became the source of discord between the then AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) government and a host of concerned residents of Chennai, as the former had planned to demolish the 19th Century heritage structure and raise a '10 storeyed and elegant' complex for the Police department. Thanks to sustained efforts of a band of dedicated conservationists, the authorities had eventually dropped their plan and gone about strengthening the Victorian-era building, which continues to serve as the headquarters of the Police department. The episode of the campaign to save the DGP office complex was recalled by many, while mourning the passing of veteran architect-conservationist Tara Murali in Chennai last week. She, along with a host of prominent residents of Chennai, had successfully fought hard in saving the building from demolition. It all began in April 1993 with the then Chief Minister Jayalalitha (as her name was spelt then) announcing, during her reply to the debate in the Assembly on the demands for grants to the Home department, her regime's plan to construct a new structure. At that time, she made only a brief reference to the plan. More details came three months later when she visited the DGP office, the first Chief Minister to do so after the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's founder and her predecessor C.N. Annadurai. A news report in The Hindu on July 28, 1993 stated 'the new complex of the office of the Director General of Police, to be constructed at the existing site on the Marina here at a cost of about Rs. [ ₹] 15 crore will have all facilities and become a landmark for the city. At the same time, care would be taken to ensure that the building comes up in harmony with the existing natural surroundings.' A number of reports and articles published by this newspaper traced the origins of 'Perfect Unanimity.' Free Masons of Madras, as the city of Chennai was officially known in the 19th Century and most of the 20th Century, was the owner of the property. The Police department took the building initially on lease for seven years from July 24. 1865 at the monthly rent of ₹ 90. It was on June 11, 1874 that the government acquired the building for ₹ 20.000 and spent ₹ 10.000 more on additions and repairs. Alterations and extensions were made in 1909 to accommodate the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) wing of the overall Police department which was formed in 1906. The main reason adduced by the authorities then for the new building was space constraint in the 19th Century structure in view of the growth of the Police department. In Tamil Nadu, it was in 1979 that the post of DGP was created to head the department. [At present, as per the sanctioned executive strength of the department, there are 14 DGPs, 18 Additional DGPs, 44 IGs (Inspector General), 37 Deputy IGs and 173 Superintendents of Police, in addition to other ranks]. The opposition to the operation against the DGP office complex came in March 1994, when many prominent citizens including former Union Minister C. Subramaniam, former DGPs K. Ravindran and V.R. Lakshminarayanan, leading writer R.K. Narayan, veteran musician Semmangudi R. Srinivasa Iyer, ace tennis player Ramanathan Krishnan, film actor Kamal Hassan and journalist-writer S. Muthiah had appealed to the then DPG S. Sripal to withdraw the demolition proposal. Representatives of the Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG), for which Tara Murali was an advisor, and the Environmental Society were also signatories of the appeal. Explaining in detail why the operation should be halted, the citizens had mooted the idea of converting the building into a museum of police history, if the building could not be used to suit the department. P.T. Krishnan, senior architect, said it should not be difficult to renovate the building which had no structural problem. However, a month later, Jayalalithaa told the Assembly that a sum of ₹3 crore had been allotted for construction of a new DGP office complex on the Marina. In the meantime, competitive designs were invited from archiects for the proposed building. In October 1994, the Chief Minister laid the foundation stone for the new complex. At that time, she did not touch upon the controversy but she said her intention was that the new building for the police headquarters should be a 'magnificent landmark,' which would adorn the sea front with matching beauty. She also observed that ' our emphasis must be on constructive correction rather than on destructive denigration.' A positive outcome of the demolition operation was that another heritage structure, the 18th-century Government House (Old MLAs' Hostel) on the Omandurar Government Estate received a facelift to accommodate the Police department temporarily. The DGP office had started functioning from the Government House mid-December 1994, the Tamil Nadu regional chapter of INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) organised a public meeting to demand the enactment of a law to protect heritage buildings. At the meeting, Tara Murali had moved a plea wherein it was stated that the move would violate existing building rules, set an undesirable precedent that would pose a threat to other heritage buildings and threaten the Marina, the only lung space left in the city. A number of leading personalities including the then Vice-Chancellor of Anna University M. Anandakrishnan took part in the meeting. It was around the time that the Madras HIgh Court stayed the demoliton operation, after being moved by the INTACH. As the legal battle went on, there was a regime change in the State in May 1996 when the DMK returned to power. Three months later, the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi announced in the Assembly that his government would not go ahead with the previous regime's decision of demolishing the DGP office building. Two years later, he declared open the renovated DGP building on the Marina. Subsequently, an annex was also built. When Jayalalithaa (by then adding an additional 'a' to her name) returned to power in May 2001, her government, in late 2003, announced that a new building for the DGP office would be built on the Film City complex in Taramani over 24 acres at a cost of ₹ 30 crore and the present building would be converted into a museum. However, nothing much was heard about this proposal. 'Perfect Unanmity' is still performing its traditional duty of providing accommodation to the Police department. The campaign, launched by conservationists including Tara Murali about 30 years ago, made it possible.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bengaluru civic polls unlikely this year; govt to file affidavit in SC
Bengaluru: Long-delayed civic elections for Bengaluru city are unlikely to be held this year, with govt officials conceding that key formalities mandated under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBG Act), 2024, may not be completed in time. Civic agency polls, overdue since Sept 2020, are now set to be pushed into 2026 owing to the complex exercise of dividing the city into five new municipal corporations and creating fresh ward boundaries. The state govt, in its submission to the Supreme Court Monday, said it needs time till Nov 1 to complete delimitation and formation of new wards in accordance with the GBG Act. The court, which scheduled the next hearing for Aug 4, has directed the govt to file an affidavit confirming its timeline commitment by then. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru "Our govt is keen on ensuring civic polls at the earliest, with the formation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), which is for the greater good of the city," said deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar , who holds the Bengaluru development portfolio. "The decision on formation of GBA has been taken keeping in mind geographical, administrative and economic aspects. As far as civic elections are concerned, we will submit an affidavit in the Supreme Court very soon." However, officials privately admit that even an early 2026 timeline is optimistic. The govt must finalise a reservation matrix for newly created wards after completing the delimitation of each of the five proposed corporations. Only then can the State Election Commission (SEC) begin work on electoral rolls. "We have told the Supreme Court that we need three months to finalise electoral rolls," said GS Sangreshi, state election commissioner. "We will begin the exercise soon after the govt completes the delimitation exercise for new wards. While the govt is committed to completing it by Nov, we expect it to file the affidavit accordingly. If it fails to keep this deadline, then we will think about filing a contempt suit against it in the apex court. " On July 18, the govt issued a draft notification to create five city corporations. Citizens have been invited to file objections or suggestions before Aug 18. Officials said the urban development department will vet these responses till Sept 2, following which final notification will be issued. Each corporation will have 90 wards, with an average population of 30,000 per ward. Despite the tight timelines, Congress MLA Rizwan Arshad, who headed a legislature committee on the GBG Bill, remains hopeful: "The govt has decided to work on a warfooting to complete all pending procedures before Nov. We will request the election commission to hold the polls by Dec. It is a herculean task, but I think it can be achieved."
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Will step in if there is any mass exclusion of voters in Bihar: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday warned that it will 'step in' if there is any mass exclusion of voters in poll-bound Bihar, asking petitioners challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls to bring before it at least 15 individuals who have been wrongly declared dead in the draft electoral list, scheduled to be published on August 1. The Supreme Court reiterated that it would take a supervisory role as the revision process unfolds. (File/PTI) 'This is a constitutional institution. We will deem that its actions are in accordance with law. But if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in,' remarked a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The court scheduled the next hearing for August 12 and 13, indicating that the first stage of hearings will focus on objections to the draft list, while the broader constitutional challenges to ECI's notification could be taken up in a second phase in September. Also read: Chirag Paswar predicts Nitish's return as CM after Bihar polls, backs NDA The court's comments came as petitioners alleged that the Commission has arbitrarily excluded or moved nearly 6.5 million voters from the rolls, either declaring them deceased or marking them as having permanently relocated. 'If you say people have been declared dead, bring 15 such people before us who are alive,' the court told the petitioners. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, raised serious concerns about the transparency of the process, arguing that neither the basis nor the names of the 6.5 million voters have been publicly shared. 'How will voters even know they have been excluded unless they see the draft list? And how do they get themselves included again?' Bhushan asked. Sibal said ECI has refused to provide them with the list of names, stating that it would be available on the website. ECI, represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, maintained that the process remained open for additions and corrections for 30 days after publication of the draft. 'Objections are yet to be considered. The real picture will emerge only after that,' he said. But the court remained cautious, reminding ECI of its constitutional responsibility. 'If you deviate from your own notification, of course we will interfere,' said the bench, adding that political parties should act as 'NGOs at this time' to ensure voters are included. The court reiterated that it would take a supervisory role as the revision process unfolds. 'We are overviewing the thing as a judicial authority,' it added. The hearing follows the court's earlier warning on Monday, when it refused to stay the publication of the August 1 draft list but emphasised that the revision process must promote en masse inclusion, not exclusion. On Monday, it also instructed ECI to treat Aadhaar and EPIC (Voter ID) cards as valid identification documents, noting that both carried a 'presumption of genuineness.' 'You proceed with Aadhaar and EPIC. Where forgery is found, act on a case-to-case basis. Any document on this earth can be forged. Instead of en masse exclusion, you should be going for en masse inclusion,' the court said then. Similar oral directions were issued on July 10, and the petitioners on Monday told the bench that field officials were still refusing to accept Aadhaar and Voter ID cards. 'The impression on the ground is that EC officials are not accepting Aadhaar and EPIC cards,' said senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. In response, the court again reminded the ECI to comply with its oral directions and proceed with the presumption of authenticity of official documents unless specific evidence of forgery exists. The petitions, filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Congress MP KC Venugopal, RJD MP Manoj Jha and others, have challenged ECI's June 24 notification that initiated a special revision of electoral rolls in Bihar under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioners argue that the Commission's list of 11 accepted documents, excluding Aadhaar, voter IDs and ration cards, is arbitrary and lacks statutory backing. They have also questioned ECI's authority to conduct such a revision and seek proof of citizenship — functions, they argued, that are constitutionally vested in the Union government. ECI, in its affidavit, contended that while determining foreign citizenship falls within the Union's exclusive domain, it is well within the Commission's powers to verify claims of citizenship by birth and require relevant documentation for inclusion in the electoral rolls. The court previously observed that the case 'goes to the root of the functioning of a democratic republic' and involves the fundamental right to vote. On July 10, another bench had said it will examine three key issues — whether ECI has the power to carry out the SIR, the manner in which it is being implemented, and the timing of the exercise in light of the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections. The draft electoral rolls for Bihar are expected to be released on August 1. The next phase in the legal battle will hinge on whether substantial numbers of legitimate voters have been excluded, and if so, whether the court should step in.
