<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Gujarat High Court has asked the state government to submit its reply on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former IPS officer Rahul Sharma against its decision to appoint an in-charge Director General of Police (DGP) instead of a regular chief. The PIL has cited that the move is in violation of the Bombay Police (Gujarat Amendment) Act-2007 and a Supreme Court order.In the PIL, which came up for hearing before the first division bench of chief justice R Subhash Reddy and justice Vipul Pancholi on Wednesday, Sharma contended that the state had not had a regular DGP/Inspector General (IG) since 2016.”The state is obliged to appoint a regular head in the interest of the society and the nation and to restore the public’s faith in policing and administration,” the PIL stated.Sharma’s advocate IH Syed submitted that appointing an in-charge DG contradicted the provisions of the Act, besides a Supreme Court directive the state should constitute a State Security Commission and select one of the three senior-most IPS officers of the state.The PIL further contended that if the state had a regular, full-time DG, it would go a long way in ensuring neutrality among the police force. It would also go a long way in deflecting political interference in the force, it added. “A regular DG is the first prescription of the rule of law while an in-charge DGP is often vulnerable to political machinations and pressure,” the PIL cited.Sharma pleaded the court to direct the state to appoint a regular, full-time DG and ensure that the officer is allowed to hold office for a tenure specified by the provision of the Bombay Police (Gujarat Amendment) Act 2007.After hearing the prayer, the court directed the government pleader to inform it about the state government’s stand on the issue before October 10, the next date of hearing.

See the article here:  

In-charge DGPs: HC asks state to explain