NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Ministry of Home Affairs to clarify whether concurrence of an IPS officer, who is on central deputation, is necessary before his appointment as the police chief of a state.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said that the MHA should file an affidavit within one week indicating whether the concurrence of an officer is necessary for appointment as the DGP even when he is on central deputation.

The bench also sought to know the relevant rules, if concurrence is required.

A counsel for the Nagaland government, submitted that consent of officers is taken for overseas deployment and not for posting in the state cadre.

During the hearing, the top court was informed that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had, on December 15, 2022, forwarded a communication by which just one name was recommended for the post of the DGP.

It also asked the Home Ministry to bring on record the communication, where it concurred with the UPSC communication.

The UPSC also suggested relaxing the experience criteria for appointment as Nagaland DGP from 30 years to 25 years.

The court noted that IPS officer Rupin Sharma was given the charge of the DGP and name of another IPS officer Sunil Achaya, a Nagaland cadre IPS officer who is on central deputation, could not be forwarded as he was unwilling to join the state cadre.

It asked the UPSC to file an affidavit on steps taken in connection with December communication.

The bench was hearing a plea by Nagaland Law Students Federation seeking a direction to recall the order granting extension to Nagaland DGP T J Longkumer, a 1991 batch IPS officer, after his superannuation.

Longkumer resigned earlier this month.

In a communication to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, the UPSC suggested that it should be empowered to relax the eligibility criterion of 30 years’ service to 25 years for the States of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Uttarakhand, Tripura and Sikkim where a sufficient number of eligible officers with the requisite qualifying service is not available to form a panel of three officers.

[Read Order]