The court says the 2025 rule removing the six-month residual service requirement for DGP appointment may conflict with the Prakash Singh judgment
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has raised concerns over a 2025 rule introduced by the Jharkhand government that removed the requirement for a prospective Director General of Police (DGP) to have at least six months of service remaining before retirement at the time of appointment.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the provision appeared, at first glance, to be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the landmark Prakash Singh judgment on police reforms and the appointment of state police chiefs.
The bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued notice to Jharkhand DGP Tadasha Mishra. It noted that if the disputed provision is struck down, her appointment could also be affected. The court, however, has not yet delivered a final ruling on the validity of the rule or her appointment.
Centre Challenges Jharkhand’s DGP Appointment Rules
The proceedings stem from a petition filed by the Centre seeking the cancellation of Mishra’s appointment. The Union government has argued that the 2025 amendment is inconsistent with the Prakash Singh judgment and the related guidelines framed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the court that the Supreme Court had earlier allowed states and Union Territories to approach it if they sought changes to the directions issued in the Prakash Singh case. He argued that Jharkhand had amended its rules without obtaining the court’s approval.
According to the Centre, the state made successive appointments of Anurag Gupta and Tadasha Mishra as Director General of Police and Head of Police Force (DGP-HoPF) in violation of the court’s directions.
Mehta submitted that after Gupta sought voluntary retirement, Mishra was appointed to the post on December 30, 2025, for a two-year term. The appointment followed the state government’s amendment removing the six-month residual service condition.
Jharkhand Government Defends Its Position
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Jharkhand government, questioned why the Centre had challenged the state’s rules when, according to him, similar or more problematic provisions existed elsewhere.
Sibal referred to laws in Bihar and other states, arguing that the challenge should not be limited to Jharkhand.
In response, Mehta said the Centre would not oppose scrutiny of similar provisions in other states, regardless of which political party was in power. He maintained that rules inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directions should also be examined.
Court Asks Amicus Curiae to Examine Rules in Other States
The Supreme Court asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, to examine whether other states have introduced similar rules or regulations governing DGP appointments.
The bench emphasised that state governments must ensure that the guidelines laid down in the Prakash Singh judgment are not weakened or bypassed.
The Jharkhand government has been given the opportunity to file its response and defend the disputed provision. The court also indicated that the state could reconsider the rule.
The matter could have implications beyond Jharkhand if the court’s examination identifies similar provisions in other states. The final outcome will depend on the court’s assessment of the challenged rule and the applicable legal framework.
