A legal battle unfolds over the appointment of West Bengal's top cop, leaving the state without a permanent police chief for over two years! But who's to blame?
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) takes charge:
In a significant move, the CAT has ordered the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to form an Empanelment Committee immediately to appoint the West Bengal Director General of Police (DGP). This directive comes amidst a leadership vacuum, as West Bengal has been without a full-time DGP since December 2023, with Acting DGP Rajeev Kumar's retirement looming on January 31.
The State's Proposal:
The CAT also instructed the West Bengal government to resubmit its proposal for the DGP post to the UPSC by January 23, 2026. This decision provides interim relief to Dr. Rajesh Kumar, a senior IPS officer, who petitioned the court to ensure timely empanelment, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.
A Fundamental Right at Stake:
The Tribunal, led by Justice Ranjit More and Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, emphasized that the 'right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right' and should not be hindered by bureaucratic delays. Dr. Kumar, a 1990-batch IPS officer, currently serves as Principal Secretary in the West Bengal government and is set to retire in January 2026.
He petitioned the Tribunal to direct the UPSC to include him in a panel of three senior-most eligible IPS officers for the DGP post, adhering to the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Prakash Singh case.
The Timeline of Events:
The DGP position became vacant on December 27, 2023, but West Bengal only submitted its empanelment proposal on July 16, 2025, listing ten IPS officers, including Dr. Kumar. UPSC returned the proposal on December 31, 2025, citing the delay and instructing the State to seek clarification from the Supreme Court.
A Contentious Delay:
Dr. Kumar argued that the proposal should have been forwarded three months before the vacancy, as per the Prakash Singh ruling. He claimed that UPSC failed to adhere to the guidelines and that further delay would cause him irreparable harm due to his upcoming retirement.
UPSC's Defense:
UPSC opposed the plea, stating that the Empanelment Committee met on October 29, 2025, but differences of opinion led them to seek the Attorney General's opinion. They also introduced a policy on January 8, 2026, to address delayed proposals.
Tribunal's Verdict:
The Tribunal dismissed UPSC's objections, stating that prolonged inaction cannot be ignored. Citing the Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court case, they ruled that UPSC cannot change procedural rules during ongoing empanelment proceedings. The Tribunal also held that the January 8, 2026, policy cannot be applied retroactively to this case.
The Way Forward:
The Tribunal granted interim relief, staying the UPSC's December 31, 2025, communication. It ordered West Bengal to resubmit the proposal by January 23 and instructed the Empanelment Committee to meet by January 28, prepare the panel, and forward it by January 29. The State must then make a swift appointment decision. The case is set for the next hearing on March 11, 2026.
Controversy and Questions:
But here's where it gets controversial. Should the State bear the brunt of the blame for the delay, or is UPSC's handling of the proposal and policy changes a cause for concern? What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
