New Delhi: The Supreme Court was told Wednesday that there was a “premeditated collusion” between Odisha government and the Centre in withdrawing senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath’s integrity certificate merely based on a CBI communication.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for petitioner Jayanta Das, told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana that the Odisha government created two temporary ex-cadre posts to facilitate promotion of other officers.
“There was a premeditated collusion between the Odisha government and the Centre. Nath’s integrity certificate was withdrawn merely on the basis of a CBI communication saying he ‘may be required to be examined’, while two temporary ex-cadre posts were subsequently created to facilitate promotion of other officers,” Chidambaram told the bench.
The top court was hearing a PIL alleging that the Odisha government was trying to include a junior officer in the list of probable candidates for the director general of police (DGP) post, in a breach of the apex court’s directions in the 2006 Prakash Singh case.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for former DGP Prakash Singh, submitted that if this kind of procedure is allowed, then it will make a mixture of the original judgment in the matter of a DGP’s appointment.
“The whole object of that judgment was to insulate the police from excessive executive control. That is why, for selection of DGP, all these things were laid down, that the UPSC will prepare a panel of three of the senior-most people in Grade 16, that is the DGP grade, and send them. And the court has seen how they have made mincemeat of it,” Bhushan said.
The lawyer said there was no chargesheet, suspension or prosecution pending against Nath and yet the Odisha government wrote to the UPSC that they are withholding the integrity certificate in view of the CBI’s response.
Senior advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for Nath, submitted that the officer has 32 years of distinguished service and he spent considerable time in anti-Naxal activities on the Tripura-Bangladesh border in the Border Security Force (BSF).
“Every single Annual Performance Assessment Report has recorded that I am an outstanding officer. It is very unusual to know that somebody who has been involved in all these activities doesn’t have any complaint against him.
“Admittedly, my record is outstanding. Nothing has been said about that. There has been no complaint whatsoever against me, not even a whisper,” Nundy said.
She told the court that while Nath was chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board, there was an alleged leak in the examination to recruit police officials.
The state government withheld the integrity certificate after the CBI said the matter was under investigation, Nundy said.
“On the FIR, I am told that November 12, 2025, the CBI did register a case. So while sending my name in May 2026, the state government was very much aware of the case, and I am not named in that FIR,” she said.
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for a retired officer in this case itself, submitted that the entire decision-making process is vitiated, starting from the day the first list was sent.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who has been appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, said the exercise by the Odisha government to create ex-cadre posts reeks of arbitrariness to artificially bring people within the zone of appointment.
With regard to the appointment of Jharkhand DGP, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, submitted that there is nothing wrong with the rules by which the DGP has been appointed.
“The only question is that she (Jharkhand DGP Tadasha Mishra) did not have a six-month residual tenure. Some of these smaller states do not even have enough DGP-level officers. The total number here was three,” he said.
Sibal said Mishra had less than six months left.
“She was the only woman officer and had dealt with the Maoist-affected areas. We thought the others would all have an opportunity to become DGP, while she would otherwise retire. So we decided to continue her because she had enormous experience,” Sibal said.
Responding to his submission, the bench remarked, “We will look at it. You have rules which completely bypass the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).”
It said nothing goes to the UPSC.
“Now it is your own set of people, and you decide who sits in the nomination committee and empanelment committee,” the bench said.
Sibal replied that there is a representative from the UPSC and a nominee of the judiciary.
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue tomorrow.
The 2006 apex court verdict and subsequent directions in the Prakash Singh case had said the DGP of a state shall be “selected by the state government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force”.
Once a person has been selected for the job, they should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation, it had said.
Chidambaram had earlier said the Odisha government was attempting to include an ineligible officer in the panel to be sent to the UPSC.
He had said the matter was being raised through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) because serving police officers awaiting appointment as DGP would ordinarily be reluctant to challenge the state government.
Orissa POST – Odisha’s No.1 English Daily
