Supreme Court Questions Odisha’s Awareness of CBI’s Interest in IPS Officer
In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court of India probed whether the Odisha government was cognizant of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) interest in questioning senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath when it proposed his name for the position of Director General of Police (DGP). The inquiry was raised by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana. The questioning arose from a petition challenging the exclusion of Nath from the DGP candidacy due to a CBI investigation into a sub-inspector (SI) recruitment scam.
The Odisha government had initially included Nath in its DGP panel but later retracted his integrity certificate following the CBI’s request. The State is now in the process of sending a revised list of IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the DGP selection. Justice Bagchi questioned whether the State should have preemptively informed the CBI about the ongoing investigation.
State’s Obligation to Inform UPSC
Justice Bagchi emphasized the importance of transparency, questioning if it was the State’s responsibility to disclose any FIR that names an officer as an accused to the UPSC. He illustrated his point with a scenario involving a police officer accused in an FIR related to the use of pellet guns against protesters, questioning whether such details should be withheld from the UPSC.
The Bench sought a chronological understanding of events related to the CBI’s probe into the recruitment scam. Justice Bagchi pressed for clarity on whether Odisha was aware of the CBI’s intentions before forwarding Nath’s name for the DGP role.
Nath’s Defense and Allegations of Collusion
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, representing Nath, informed the court that the CBI’s case was filed on November 12, 2025, and that Nath was not named as an accused. According to Nundy, the Odisha government was aware of the CBI’s investigation when it proposed Nath’s name in May 2026. Nundy asserted that Nath’s exemplary service record was unblemished and that the CBI’s interest was due to his position as the ex-officio chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board (OPRB).
More Read
Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, representing a petitioner, alleged collusion between the Odisha government and the central authorities, arguing that Nath’s integrity certificate was revoked solely because the CBI expressed the intention to question him. Chidambaram also highlighted the creation of temporary ex-cadre posts, suggesting this was done to accommodate other officers.
Concerns Over the Prakash Singh Judgment
Advocate Prashant Bhushan cautioned that the ongoing process could undermine the Prakash Singh judgment, which governs police appointments. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, another senior advocate, argued that creating temporary posts violated rules and expanded the selection pool improperly.
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran criticized the process as arbitrary, potentially allowing political favoritism, contrary to the Prakash Singh judgment’s objectives. The court witnessed a heated exchange when the Odisha Advocate General accused Ramachandran of bias, a charge he vehemently denied.
Additional Observations and Future Hearings
The court also briefly discussed the appointment of Jharkhand’s first female DGP, Tadasha Mishra, questioning the state’s method for circumventing the six-month tenure rule. The Bench scrutinized the role of the UPSC in the state’s appointment process, questioning whether the state’s rules conflicted with the Prakash Singh judgment.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal defended Jharkhand’s rules, arguing for flexibility given the state’s limited pool of DGP-level officers. The hearing is set to continue, with further clarifications expected from the Odisha Advocate General.
