The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a firm directive to the Haryana government on Monday. The court granted the state a strict four-week deadline to submit its reply in a significant public interest litigation. This PIL challenges the appointment of a retired Director General of Police as the chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority.
Court Issues Peremptory Order
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Neerja Kulwant Kalson delivered the interim order. The Bench noted with concern that despite receiving a notice on August 29, 2025, the Haryana government had failed to file its response. The court made it clear that any further delay would not be tolerated.
The Bench explicitly stated that if the reply is not filed within the allotted four weeks, the state's right to respond will stand forfeited. The matter has now been scheduled for a hearing on February 26, 2026.
Legal Arguments Against the Appointment
Senior advocate Rajesh Garg presented the petitioner's case before the court. He argued that the appointment of a retired senior police officer to head the Police Complaints Authority violates legal principles. Garg emphasized that the Supreme Court's landmark 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case mandated that such authorities should be headed by retired High Court judges.
Garg explained the legislative history to the Bench. Haryana enacted a law in 2007 that initially allowed the post to be held by either a retired High Court judge or a retired civil servant. However, this provision was diluted just a year later. The amended law permitted the appointment of any "person of eminence" with experience in administration or law.
"It was under this diluted provision that a retired Haryana DGP was appointed as chairperson," Garg told the court.
Precedent from a Chandigarh Case
The senior advocate cited a relevant precedent to strengthen his argument. He pointed to a 2015 Division Bench judgment of the same High Court concerning Chandigarh. In that case, the court had quashed the appointment of a retired Indian Economic Service officer as chairperson of the authority.
The 2015 judgment held that such an appointment was contrary to the Supreme Court's directions. Garg noted that this judgment was never challenged before the Supreme Court and had therefore attained finality. Following that ruling, Chandigarh appointed a retired High Court judge to head its authority.
State's Contention and Petitioner's Clarification
Responding to the state's argument that the Prakash Singh matter remains pending before the Supreme Court, Garg offered a crucial clarification. He stated that the pending issue relates only to the fixed tenure of Directors General of Police. It does not concern the composition of Police Complaints Authorities.
Garg also referenced a subsequent Supreme Court order. This order stated that any state law running contrary to the 2006 directions would be kept in abeyance.
Judicial Concern Over Delays
During the hearing, the Bench expressed clear dissatisfaction with the state's continued failure to file a reply. Chief Justice Nagu observed that while one respondent had filed a response, the state itself had not done so despite having ample opportunity.
When the petitioner sought interim relief, the court indicated that granting such relief would amount to providing final relief at this preliminary stage. However, the Bench stressed that the issue would be taken up seriously after pleadings were complete.
The court emphasized that the state could not be allowed to delay the proceedings indefinitely. Chief Justice Nagu remarked, "This is why a peremptory order is being passed," while fixing the next hearing for the last week of February.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between state governments and judicial directives regarding police reforms. It underscores the critical importance of independent oversight mechanisms for police accountability as envisioned by the Supreme Court over a decade ago.
