PIL in Madras High Court challenges appointment of G. Venkatraman as DGP in-charge of Tamil Nadu

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the appointment of G. Venkatraman as Director General of Police/Head of Police Force (DGP/HoPF) in-charge despite the availability of many other senior and meritorious police officers eligible for regular appointment to the post.

The petition has been listed for hearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Monday (September 8, 2025). R. Varadaraj (69), a former Inspector of Police turned advocate and now president of Nethaji Makkal Katchi had filed the PIL plea.

The petitioner had taken voluntary retirement in 2005 after serving the Fingerprint Bureau as Inspector of Police for 25 years. Subsequently, he founded a law firm before entering politics. Therefore, he claimed to have been continuously engaged with public grievances relating to policing, accountability, and governance.

He recalled the Supreme Court to have laid down elaborate guidelines, since 2006, in the famous Prakash Singh’s case for appointment of meritorious candidates to the post of DGP/HoPF in every State and also to ensure that every candidate appointed to the post gets to serve in that capacity for a minimum of two years.

As per the orders passed by the top court, the Tamil Nadu government must have forwarded a list of all eligible officers in the rank of DGP to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in May 2025, three months before former DGP/HoPF Shankar Jiwal attained superannuation on August 31, 2025, the petitioner said.

On receipt of such a list, the UPSC was expected to draw a panel of three names by giving topmost priority to merit and the State government must have appointed one of those three officers as the DGP/HoPF. However, this year, the list was not sent to the UPSC on time leading to an ad-hoc appointment, he complained.

Curiously, the petitioner claimed that Mr. Venkatraman, who had served as DGP (Administration) before his adhoc appointment as DGP/HoPF, was the officer responsible for having drawn the list and forwarded it to the Home Secretary as well as the Chief Secretary but he himself ended up being appointed to the post.

Accusing the State government of having intentionally not forwarded the list of eligible officers to the UPSC on time, the petitioner alleged that the government had clearly acted in breach of the binding directives of the Supreme Court and that the untenable action, or rather inaction, reeked of political expediency.

The petitioner also stated that the DGP/HoPF’s office holds a pivotal position in the administration of the State police force and that the appointment of an adhoc officer, especially when the Legislative Assembly elections were due in 2026, raises a legitimate apprehension that the police force may be compromised for partisan ends.

He urged the court to quash a public notice issued by the Home Secretary on August 31, 2025 for appointing Mr. Venkatraman as DGP/HoPF (in-charge) and issue a consequent direction to the State government and UPSC to initiate the process of appointment of a regular DGP/HoPF as per Supreme Court orders.

Until such a regular appointment, any one of the top three senior officers in the rank of DGP must be asked to hold the post, the petitioner insisted. He also sought an interim order restraining Mr. Venkatraman from occupying the post of DGP/HoPF until the disposal of the PIL petition.