Supreme Court upholds Gauhati High Court's landmark decision to quash rule on SP appraisals by Collector

The Supreme Court has upheld the Gauhati High Court's decision to set aside a rule allowing Deputy Commissioners (DCs) in Assam to initiate performance and appraisal reports of Indian Police Service officers serving as Superintendents of Police (SPs) in the state.

The case, titled State of Assam and ors vs Binod Kumar and ors, revolved around Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual, which prescribed that the assessment of SPs should be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. Various SPs in Assam had challenged this rule, leading to the High Court ruling in their favor on the grounds that it violated Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007.

A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar, while disposing of the appeal filed by the Assam government, emphasized that the performance of a district Superintendent of Police should not be subject to review by a Deputy Commissioner, as the latter is not hierarchically above the former.

The court highlighted, "When liberty has been given to the SP to disagree with the Deputy Commissioner on any point relating to police administration, subjecting the SP's performance assessment to the same Deputy Commissioner would be a parody."

The ruling further emphasized that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) produced by DCs in such situations cannot be considered impartial and objective, necessitating the avoidance of such a scenario to maintain the sanctity of the assessment process.

The High Court's decision was challenged by the Assam government before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal, affirming the 2017 Gauhati High Court ruling. The court rejected the argument that IPS officers in Assam could not insist on a reviewer of their choice, emphasizing that they are entitled to the rules framed under the 2007 Act.

"IPS Officers cannot be denied the benefit of the 2007 Rules applicable across the board to their ilk serving all over the country. They are merely seeking parity with their counterparts working in other parts of the country," the Court added.