Confusion prevails over next State Police Chief as LDF govt mulls options beyond UPSC list
Former Director General of Prosecution Asaf Ali termed the move 'foolhardy,' stressing that the state must adhere to the directives laid down by the Supreme Court.
'Nothing is above the Supreme Court verdict which has given proper directions in the Prakash v. Union of India. It clearly states that the state government will go with the three names shortlisted by the UPSC. UPSC selection body chooses the top ranks with the length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the department. Nobody can violate it and move forward." he added.
For the states that have in-charge DGPs, the tenure is two years. And also, why would any government look at other states when already a Supreme Court verdict is clear. It will not stand if legally challenged. For example, in Sen Kumar's case, the state government was not able to violate the law. As in the case of Kerala Police Act, it has been diluted for convenience.
In a special circumstance like if UPSC list is late, if other states are choosing in-charge DGP, that should not be the norm. There is a Supreme Court verdict and nothing can't be done above that,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
20 minutes ago
- News18
Lalit Modi Petitions Supreme Court To Order BCCI To Pay ED's FEMA Penalty
Last Updated: Lalit Modi has approached the Supreme Court, seeking a directive for BCCI to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed by the ED. The Bombay HC had previously rejected his petition. Former Indian Premier League (IPL) head Lalit Modi has approached the Supreme Court, seeking a directive for the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the ED. Previously, the Bombay High Court had rejected Lalit Modi's petition, which sought a directive for the BCCI to cover this penalty imposed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) during the 2009 IPL season in South Africa. The court refused his claim that the BCCI's by-laws required them to indemnify him, stating that the requested reliefs were 'wholly misconceived." Not only was Lalit Modi's writ petition dismissed, but a bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, in their order dated December 19 last year, also directed him to pay costs of Rs 1 lakh within four weeks. In his special leave petition (SLP) to the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi argued that according to the Rules and Regulations to the Memorandum of Association, the BCCI is obliged to indemnify its office bearers for losses and expenses incurred during their official duties. Citing Rule 34 of the Rules and Regulations of the Memorandum of Association of BCCI, the plea, filed through advocate Vikas Mehta, pointed out that Modi served as Vice President of BCCI from 2005 to 2010 and Chairman of IPL from 2007 to 2010. The SLP highlighted the 'discriminatory manner" in which the BCCI indemnified Honorary Secretary N. Srinivasan and Treasurer M.P. Pandove against penalties imposed on them. It added that Lalit Modi paid the Rs 1 lakh costs to avoid being seen as non-compliant or in contempt of court, though the payment was made without prejudice to his right to challenge the Bombay High Court's decision. Shortly after the conclusion of IPL 2010, Lalit Modi was suspended from BCCI following accusations of misconduct, indiscipline, and financial irregularities. The BCCI launched an investigation against him, and a committee found him guilty of these charges, leading to a lifetime ban in 2013.
India Gazette
37 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Bar Council of India issues advisory against unapproved online LLM programmes
New Delhi [India], June 29 (ANI): In a decisive step toward preserving the credibility of legal education in India, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a formal advisory against the proliferation of unapproved LL.M. (Master of Laws) programmes offered in online, distance, or hybrid formats. This advisory reinforces the exclusive regulatory role of the BCI and emphasizes compliance with existing legal and academic frameworks. The letter, authored by Justice Rajendra Menon, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and Co-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal Education, was addressed to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India. Copies of the letter were also circulated to universities and State Bar Councils to ensure compliance and initiate appropriate action. The advisory reiterates the binding authority of Supreme Court rulings, the UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2020, and BCI's own Legal Education Rules (2008 and 2020), under which LL.M. programmes must secure prior approval before being conducted via non-traditional methods. Any deviation, it warns, threatens the standard, uniformity, and legal sanctity of postgraduate legal education across the country. Letter issued in this regards stated that, alarmed by the growing number of institutions offering programmes under alternative titles such as LL.M. (Professional), Executive LL.M., or in Cyber Law, the BCI has highlighted that many of these courses are being run without mandatory approvals. Such practices, it stated, not only violate Supreme Court directives but also mislead students and degrade academic quality. The Bar Council clarified that under the Advocates Act, 1961, it is the only statutory authority empowered to regulate both undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes. No other entity--including UGC or autonomous universities--can validate LL.M. courses independently. The Council emphasized that an LL.M. degree is the minimum qualification required for teaching law, and therefore any relaxation in quality or regulatory compliance directly affects the legal profession. In light of these violations, the BCI has urged High Courts take judicial notice of the BCI's exclusive authority in legal education, Reject qualifications obtained from unapproved LL.M. programmes for appointments or promotions and Require institutions and individuals to submit compliance verification from the BCI where necessary. To protect students and uphold public trust, the Bar Council plans to release a public advisory cautioning against enrollment in such unauthorized programmes. It is also preparing to initiate contempt proceedings and other legal measures against institutions found violating these guidelines. (ANI)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Bar council of India issues advisory against unapproved online LLM programmes
Bar council of India (Image credits: ANI) NEW DELHI: In a decisive step toward preserving the credibility of legal education in India, the bar council of India (BCI) has issued a formal advisory against the proliferation of unapproved LLM (master of laws) programmes offered in online, distance or hybrid formats. This advisory reinforces the exclusive regulatory role of the BCI and emphasis es compliance with existing legal and academic frameworks. The letter, authored by Justice Rajendra Menon, former chief justice of the Delhi High Court and co-chairman of the standing committee on legal education, was addressed to the registrar generals of all High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India . Copies of the letter were also circulated to universities and state bar councils to ensure compliance and initiate appropriate action. The advisory reiterates the binding authority of Supreme Court rulings, the UGC (open and distance learning) regulations, 2020, and BCI's own Legal education rules (2008 and 2020), under which LLM programmes must secure prior approval before being conducted via non-traditional methods. Any deviation, it warns, threatens the standard, uniformity, and legal sanctity of postgraduate legal education across the country. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No Mess, Safer Chew Solution Petlori Learn More Undo Letter issued in this regards stated that, alarmed by the growing number of institutions offering programmes under alternative titles such as LLM (professional), executive LLM, or MSc in cyber law, the BCI has highlighted that many of these courses are being run without mandatory approvals. Such practices, it stated, not only violate Supreme Court directives but also mislead students and degrade academic quality. The bar council clarified that under the Advocates Act, 1961, it is the only statutory authority empowered to regulate both undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes. No other entity, including UGC or autonomous universities, can validate LLM courses independently. The council emphasized that an LLM degree is the minimum qualification required for teaching law, and therefore any relaxation in quality or regulatory compliance directly affects the legal profession. In light of these violations, the BCI has urged High Courts take judicial notice of the BCI's exclusive authority in legal education, Reject qualifications obtained from unapproved LLM programmes for appointments or promotions and Require institutions and individuals to submit compliance verification from the BCI where necessary. To protect students and uphold public trust, the bar council plans to release a public advisory cautioning against enrollment in such unauthorized programmes. It is also preparing to initiate contempt proceedings and other legal measures against institutions found violating these guidelines.
