By SUNIT MISHRA, OP
Bhubaneswar: The Supreme Court Monday deferred the hearing of a case concerning the selection of Odisha’s new director general of police (DGP) to September 16. Meanwhile, Susanta Kumar Nath, a 1993-batch IPS officer currently serving as Odisha’s Director General of Prisons, has become a party to the case in the SC. Nath’s move is expected to bring a new turn to the ongoing litigation over the selection of the state’s DGP.
It had been speculated that Nath might approach the court after his name was dropped from the list of DGP candidates and the state government raised questions over his integrity. That has now materialised. According to sources, there is considerable discussion within police circles that, for the first time, an IPS officer aspiring to become Odisha’s DGP has approached the SC against the state government.
Nath’s counsel, Karuna Nandy, told the bench Monday that the state government had unnecessarily attempted to humiliate Nath. Karuna said there had been no corruption or criminal allegations against Nath during his 32 years of service and that he was a recipient of a President’s Police Medal. Karuna also said Nath had no role in the Sub-Inspector examination scam.
Nandy argued that the withdrawal of Nath’s integrity certificate from the UPSC was completely illegal and amounted to injustice against him. Nandy also told the court that no case had so far been registered against Nath. Against this backdrop, there is intense speculation in police circles over whether Nath will continue to challenge the government’s position or eventually remain silent without seeking to establish his record of integrity over 32 years of service.
The state government had written to the CBI August 3 seeking to know what role Nath had played in the Sub-Inspector examination scam of 2025. The CBI, in its reply August 4, said permission had been sought under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to question officials of ITI Ltd., the agency entrusted with conducting the examination.
The CBI said Nath could be called for questioning, if necessary, after the required permission was obtained. Section 17A of the PC Act provides that permission from the competent authority of the state or Central government is required to investigate a public servant in connection with decisions or recommendations made in the discharge of official duties.
No permission has so far been granted to question the officials of the organisation, and no case has been registered against Nath in connection with the Sub-Inspector examination scam, according to the report. However, the state government cited the CBI letter while withdrawing Nath’s integrity certificate from the UPSC. His name was also omitted from the fresh list submitted by the government for the DGP selection.
The case was originally filed as a public interest litigation by Jayant Das, who alleged that the state government had failed to maintain transparency in the DGP selection process and had violated the SC’s 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case. During the first hearing, the bench headed by CJI Surya Kant asked P Chidambaram, appearing for Das, why the IPS officers who stood to be adversely affected by the process had not approached the court themselves.
Chidambaram replied that those who stood to be affected were hoping to become DGP and, therefore, would be reluctant to challenge the government. With Nath now becoming a party to the DGP selection proceedings, there is widespread discussion that the question posed by the CJI has, to some extent, been answered. The development also appears to weaken the state government’s earlier argument that Das was not an appropriate person to file a PIL on the DGP selection process.
Nath’s counsel has also requested the bench to provide all documents submitted by the state government in the matter. Amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the SC in the case, had earlier said the state government had failed to maintain transparency in the DGP selection process and had supported Das’ PIL. On September 2, the amicus curiae submitted a report to the SC on the matter.
On September 6, Ramachandran also provided another report to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Odisha government. Mehta sought some time from the bench to examine the report. The bench agreed and scheduled the next hearing for September 16. Meanwhile, the state government had been expected to file a report on a rejoinder submitted by Jayant Das, but it had not been filed by Monday.