The DMK General Secretary Duraimurugan has issued a statement condemning the recent appointment of Special Director General of Police (Law and Order) Rajesh Das, alleging that it would create dual power centres in the force. Duraimurugan said Rajesh Das’ appointment while DGP JK Tripathi holds office is against the Supreme Court’s recommendations in Prakash Singh vs Union of India case, 2006. The former DGPs of the state, however, say that the allegations of the DMK leader are not true since the SC has only recommended the government to not appoint an acting DGP.
In a statement, the DMK General Secretary Duraimurugan alleged, “The AIADMK with dual leadership and the controversies arising out of it in the party has appointed DGP and Special DGP for the state which will completely ruin the police force. The Tamil Nadu government has appointed the Special DGP to help Chief Minister Edappadi with the election work. It is saddening that the government has appointed two DGPs to monitor the Law and Order situation of the state.”
Duraimuguran also alleged that the AIADMK led government has failed to implement the recommendations of Prakash Singh’s case in the past 10 years. “The AIADMK government has appointed another DGP and has reduced the functioning of the current DGP. The AIADMK is using this as a tool and the appointment of the DGP by the Chief Minister, which will ruin the functioning of the state, is condemnable,” he alleged.
However, two former DGPs told TNM that the allegation made by DMK General Secretary Duraimurugan was wrong. In 2006, the Supreme Court introduced seven directives for police reforms in the Prakash Singh vs the Union of India case. The court once again took up the case for hearing in 2018 based on an interim plea that the 2006 recommendations were not implemented.
Explaining the case, retired DGP S K Dogra said, “Since the SC said the minimum tenure of DGP was for two years, many officers eligible for the post did not have two years of service and were provided an extension. Using this, some states did not fill up the post of DGP and they would keep acting DGPs. This is what the Supreme Court said should be avoided.”
The former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra who headed the bench in 2018 recommended states to not appoint an acting Director General of Police. The bench also said that the appointed officers should have a reasonable service period.
Reiterating Dogra’s statement, former DGP and AIADMK MLA R Nataraj said that the appointment of two Director General of Police cannot be questioned. “The SC said not to appoint acting DGPs but instead appoint DGPs. The appointment of Special DGPs are required, many other departments like CRPF, BSF have officers. The state has restricted only the numbers; the state can only have six empanelled DGPs. So the appointment of the state is not wrong,” he said.
Nataraj also rejected Duraimurugans’ allegation that the appointment would create dual power centres in the force. "The word dual power is wrong. The appointment of the special DGP is something that is already existing. Every department like the Central Bureau of Investigation, Intelligence Bureau has special officers. Once the post of head of police came into existence, the state governments appointed special DGPs. So Special DGP is a person working under the head of the state police force."