New Delhi, Sep 24 The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Odisha government if it has put a senior IPS officer, whose name was excluded from a list of officers being considered for the DGP’s post, in the category of accused after the CBI stated that he might need to be questioned in a recruitment exam scam case.
The Odisha government had forwarded a panel of 11 senior IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in May to choose a successor to the outgoing DGP.
However, the Odisha government withdrew Nath’s name from the panel after the CBI stated he might need to be questioned in the recruitment exam scam case.
According to procedure, states should propose DGP-rank officers meeting seniority and eligibility norms, with at least six months of service left before retirement from the date of vacancy.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Odisha government, if the state was putting Nath in the category of accused by withholding his certificate.
“Withholding integrity certificate is going too far. Are you putting him in the category of accused?
“If it is said that merely because there is such a case pending, the integrity certificate can be withheld, we would be led to draw an inference that puts the cart before the horse,” Justice Bagchi remarked orally.
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 DGP, in a breach of the apex court’s directions in the 2006 Prakash Singh case.
At the outset, Mehta submitted that the state government started the process for DGP recruitment six months before the earlier DGP was to retire as per Prakash Singh guidelines.
He said that the CBI informed the state government that Nath was the chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board, which was conducting the examination for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police.
“The CBI said the entire examination process was under investigation, including the role of the examination-conducting agencies, the Odisha Police Recruitment Board and others.
“Permission under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act had been sought in respect of officials concerned and was pending. The CBI said that after receipt of permission and examination of those officials, Shri Sushant Kumar Nath, IPS, “may be required to be examined. This is what the CBI told us on August 4, 2026,” Mehta said.
He informed the court that the CBI investigation is still underway. He also submitted that Nath’s performance appraisals did not mention anything about the criminal investigation.
Mehta added that after the CBI’s request, the state government excluded Nath and forwarded a revised proposal containing integrity certificates in respect of only 10 officers for empanelment.
“As a measure of abundant caution and due diligence, the state reviewed the integrity certificates of all eligible officers. It was not done only for one person. Had something been found concerning another officer, that too would have been suitably intimated,” Mehta said.
He submitted that the government reviewed and reconsidered the integrity certificate and withheld the integrity certificate in respect of Nath.
“A revised proposal containing integrity certificates in respect of only ten officers was thereafter forwarded,” he added.
“As a measure of abundant caution and due diligence, the State reviewed the integrity certificates of all eligible officers. It was not done only for one person. Had something been found concerning another officer, that too would have been suitably intimated,” Mehta told the court.
Senior advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for Nath, submitted that the IPS officer’s record is outstanding and there has been no complaint against him.
“The only thing against Nath is the CBI letter saying that he ‘may be required to be examined’. Not one of the FIRs has a whisper of my name. Certainly not as an accused. I am not an accused in the FIR, the investigation is still ongoing and the leaked question papers were never found,” Nundy said.
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on September 29.
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.
(PTI News)
