New Delhi: Widening its examination over appointment of DGPs, the Supreme Court Tuesday asked the Centre to provide the gist of existing legislative or executive regime adopted by every state over the selection and appointment of police chiefs.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also asked the Jharkhand government and its DGP Tadasha Mishra, who was appointed as the police chief a day before her retirement, to respond to a plea filed by the Centre and others challenging her elevation to the post on or before November 16.
Agreeing to the submissions of senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curiae, the CJI said, I think Mr Raju is right that the Union can be in a position to give us the gist of the existing legislative or executive regime adopted by every state (on the appointment of DGPs).
Ramachandran sought directions to the Centre and states to disclose whether they had enacted legislation or framed rules governing DGP appointments and, more importantly, whether these provisions were being implemented.
He pointed out that certain states had framed rules similar to those introduced by Jharkhand but continued to claim compliance with the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh directions.
He specifically referred to Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, where similar provisions were stated to exist.
He said that a comprehensive assessment of the legal and executive frameworks adopted by different states was necessary to enable the court to examine the issue holistically rather than adjudicating the validity of individual state rules in isolation.
The bench indicated that states would be required to furnish their responses.
The court also observed that the relevant provisions could take the form of statutes, regulations or executive orders, but their legal effect would remain a matter of judicial scrutiny.
The bench asked the amicus curiae to place a comprehensive note on record and asked the Registry to accept it and circulate copies among the lawyers representing the parties.
The court also granted the current Jharkhand DGP an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit by November 16, 2026.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that the Jharkhand issue needed to be heard first as the state’s rules were found to be in contravention of the apex court’s directions on issues relating to the appointment process of the DGP.
October 8, the bench had questioned the validity of the Jharkhand government’s rules governing the appointment of its police chief.
In that order, the bench had observed that the relevant provision prima facie appeared to be contrary to the law laid down in the Prakash Singh judgment.
It had further noted that if the rule was ultimately struck down, the consequential appointment of the incumbent DGP could also be liable to be set aside.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand, informed the court that he had spoken to the chief secretary and that the state would examine the issue and place an appropriate application or affidavit before the court.
The Centre has challenged the Jharkhand government’s Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025, notified January 8, 2025.
Under the original regulation, a nomination committee was constituted for selecting the DGP, with provisions for a panel of three to five officers and a minimum residual service requirement of six months.
The Centre has alleged that the Jharkhand government subsequently amended the regulation December 29, 2025, and appointed Tadasha Mishra as DGP December 30, a day before her scheduled retirement.
According to the Centre, the appointment effectively enabled an officer on the verge of retirement to secure a two-year tenure, contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.
The Centre’s plea, filed July 16, also questioned the earlier appointment of Anurag Kumar Gupta as Jharkhand DGP February 2, 2025, when he reportedly had only around three months of service remaining.
The apex court’s landmark 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh vs Union of India laid down safeguards for ensuring transparency, merit and stability in the appointment of state police chiefs.
It directed that DGPs should be selected by state governments from among the three senior-most eligible officers empanelled by the UPSC, based on their length of service, very good record and experience.
The judgment also stipulated a minimum tenure of two years for an appointed DGP, irrespective of the officer’s date of superannuation.
