Supreme Court Demands Nationwide Compliance Report on DGP Appointments
In a significant move to ensure the sanctity of police administration across the country, the Supreme Court has directed the Union government to submit a comprehensive report detailing state-level laws and policies that circumvent the court-mandated guidelines for the appointment of Directors General of Police (DGP).
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, emphasized that any judicial ruling concerning individual state laws would have far-reaching implications for other states that have enacted similar provisions. The court’s intervention stems from the landmark 2006 Prakash Singh judgment, which established strict criteria for police chief appointments to ensure functional autonomy, including the requirement that an officer must have at least six months of residual service before retirement to be considered for the top post.
Addressing Legislative Non-Compliance
The proceedings were triggered by a challenge to the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025. The Jharkhand government had introduced legislation permitting the appointment of DGPs even if they had less than six months remaining in their service.
During the hearing, amicus curiae and senior advocate Raju Ramachandran informed the bench that the issue was not isolated to Jharkhand. He identified that Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Bihar have also implemented legislative frameworks that deviate from the Supreme Court’s established norms.
“The Union of India shall place a report on the legislative or executive policy of states which are not in compliance with the judgment in the Prakash Singh case,” the bench ordered, stressing the need for a systemic overview rather than a piecemeal approach.
The Jharkhand Controversy
Central to the ongoing legal dispute is the appointment of Tadasha Mishra as the Jharkhand DGP on December 30, 2025—a decision made when the officer had only one day of service left before retirement. The Union government has challenged this appointment, arguing that it stands in direct defiance of judicial mandates.
The court has previously warned that if the state’s rules are ultimately declared unconstitutional, the subsequent appointment of the current DGP would necessarily have to be vacated. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state of Jharkhand, informed the bench that he is in consultation with the state’s Chief Secretary and will submit a formal affidavit regarding the state’s stance by the next hearing.
Moving Toward Uniformity
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, underscored the government’s commitment to upholding the Prakash Singh guidelines nationwide. While the Centre initiated the challenge regarding Jharkhand, Mehta signaled that the government is prepared to address similar violations in other jurisdictions if they are brought to light.
The amicus curiae is currently preparing a detailed note cataloging the various state-level statutes that contradict the Supreme Court’s directions. This document is expected to provide the court with the necessary data to pass a holistic order that prevents states from using local legislation to undermine the tenure-related safeguards meant for police chiefs.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on November 25, when the court is expected to deliberate on the Centre’s report and determine the path forward for ensuring nationwide adherence to the rule of law in police governance.
Disclaimer: This content is auto-generated for informational purposes only.
Source: Read Original News
