Updated: December 13, 2020 7:45:55 am
The nature of the federal system in India and the way the Services for All India works make it difficult for the Center to impose its will on a state that refuses to back down. (Representative image)
According to the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, the central government has the final say in a dispute with a state over the delegation of a police officer to the Center.
However, the nature of India’s federal system and the way services across India operate make it difficult for the Center to impose its will on a state that refuses to back down.
The Center has requested that three senior IPS officials who were in charge of security when the caravan of BJP National President JP Nadda was attacked Allegedly by supporters of the Trinamool Congress outside Calcutta on Thursday, it will be sent in delegation with the Government of India.
the The West Bengal government has refused, citing the shortage of IPS officials in the state.
Rule 6 (1) of the Indian Police Service (Chart) Rules, 1954, as amended in May 1969, provides that “A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Government or Governments of the States concerned and the Central Government, be for service under the Central Government or another State Government … “
In July 1985, a line was added to this Rule, saying: “In case of disagreement, the matter will be decided by the Central Government and the Government of the State or the Governments of the States concerned will give effect to the Government’s decision. Central. “
Government sources told The Indian Express that the Interior Ministry letter to the state government stating that the Center requires the services of the three IPS officers has requested state approval by December 15. on that date, the Center would consider the attendance granted.
The normal practice is for the central government to request each year a “supply list” of officials willing to join the central delegation, after which the Center elects officials from that list, considering various other conditions.
The IPS delegation policy states: “The two-way movement of officers from one state to the center and vice versa is mutually beneficial for the states and the Indian government, on the one hand, and for the officers involved, on the other.”
Each state cadre establishes a central delegation quota and the use of that quota is an “important factor that governs the scale at which officers from the various state cadres of the service are borrowed,” says the policy.
But for the central council, the concurrence of the state is a very important factor. Under normal circumstances, it is also understood that the officer in question must be willing.
In the case of Archana Ramasundaram, an official from Tamil Nadu who was a delegate to the IWC in 2014, the state government refused to release her and suspended her after she defied the state order. However, the suspension was not applied because by then he had already joined CBI.
In early July 2001, the central government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee had asked the Tamil Nadu government then headed by J Jayalalithaa to send three IPS officers in the central delegation, but she had refused.
Officers, then-Chennai Police Commissioner K Muthukaruppan, Joint Commissioner S George, and Deputy Commissioner Christopher Nelson, were involved in the June 30, 2001 night raid against then-DMK chief M Karunanidhi. Jayalalithaa had refused to pardon the officers and had written to other chief ministers about the “disturbing trend” in the management of the state cadres of the All India Services, asking them to write to the Center about the threat to federalism. .
Prakash Singh, a former DGP from Uttar Pradesh who has been fighting a battle for reforms in the police, told The Indian Express on Saturday: “The Center has the right to request the services of any IPS officer from the central delegation, but the state cannot be compelled to send any officer. “
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
