Supreme Court questions Jharkhand rule allowing DGP appointment despite less than 6 months’ service

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the legality of a Jharkhand rule that permits an officer with less than six months of service remaining before superannuation to be considered for appointment as DGP, observing that the provision prima facie runs contrary to its directions in the Prakash Singh case.

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the legality of a Jharkhand rule that permits an officer with less than six months of service remaining before superannuation to be considered for appointment as DGP, observing that the provision prima facie runs contrary to its directions in the Prakash Singh case. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the provision could not be sustained if it diluted the court’s mandate on appointment and tenure of police chiefs.

The apex court issued notice to Jharkhand DGP Tadasha Mishra, as any decision to invalidate the rule could affect her appointment. It gave the State one week to either reconsider the provision or file its response. “An officer has been made eligible to be considered for appointment as Director General of Police of the State even where the residual service before superannuation is less than six months. Such a provision, prima facie, appears to be directly in conflict with the law laid down by this Court in Prakash Singh," the apex court said.

The bench further said, “A right has already been created in her favour. If we set aside the rule, that may have consequences for her appointment. Otherwise, we can set aside the rule prospectively and say that the officer shall continue.” The apex court was hearing an application filed by the Central government challenging the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Regulations, 2025 and all DGP appointments made under it.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand, said the State had no objection to revisiting the rules. He also questioned why the Centre had targeted Jharkhand when similar provisions existed in other States. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Centre would oppose any State law that was contrary to the Prakash Singh directions, irrespective of the political party in power.

The bench said its duty was to ensure that the Prakash Singh safeguards were not diluted by States. It sought inputs from the amicus curiae on whether DGP appointment laws across all States in India conform with the principles laid down in the Prakash Singh case.

The Centre has filed an application challenging the appointment of Jharkhand DGP Tadasha Mishra, alleging that the appointment was made in violation of the procedure laid down by it for selection of the State police chief. The Centre has sought a direction to Jharkhand to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court for DGP appointments and a declaration that appointments made under the State’s 2025 Regulation are illegal.

The challenge is directed against the “Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025”, notified on January 8, 2025. The Centre has asked the court to direct Jharkhand to implement its directions in the Prakash Singh case and, alternatively, declare DGP appointments made under the 2025 regulation illegal.

The Centre has also challenged the appointments of IPS officers Anurag Gupta and Tadasha Mishra as DGP. Gupta was appointed on February 2, 2025 despite having only around three months of service left. Mishra was appointed on December 30, 2025, a day before her scheduled superannuation, after the State amended the Regulation to remove the six-month residual-service requirement.

The Centre said Jharkhand had selectively relied on the Prakash Singh judgment to provide DGPs a two-year tenure while disregarding the mandated selection process involving the UPSC. The Centre said that the Court’s directions had to be implemented in full and not selectively.

The plea also referred to the Court’s earlier proceedings concerning the State’s failure to forward its DGP appointment proposal to the UPSC and its May 19, 2026 direction seeking a compliance affidavit. The Prakash Singh case concerns the Supreme Court’s long-running oversight of police reforms, with the Court issuing a series of directions since 2006 to promote institutional independence, transparent appointments and stability in the tenure of senior police officials.

Under the apex court’s framework, the State government is required to appoint the DGP from a panel of three officers shortlisted by the UPSC based on their service record, seniority and experience. The chosen officer is ordinarily entitled to a minimum two-year tenure, irrespective of the officer’s date of superannuation. (ANI)