The Supreme Court on Thursday prima facie found Jharkhand’s regulatory framework governing the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) to be at odds with the mandate laid down in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, particularly the requirement that an officer considered for appointment as DGP must have at least six months of residual service.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the observation while hearing an application filed by the Central Government challenging the constitutional and legal validity of the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Regulations, 2025, as well as appointments made pursuant to the framework.
The Centre has specifically taken exception to the provision enabling officers having less than six months of service left before retirement to be considered for appointment as DGP. It submitted that the provision runs contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh, wherein the Court had stipulated that officers with a minimum of six months of residual service alone could be recommended for appointment as the State police chief.
The issue assumes significance in the backdrop of the appointment of incumbent Jharkhand DGP Tadasha Mishra, who was appointed to a two-year term on December 30, 2025—just a day before her scheduled retirement.
The Bench observed that permitting an officer with less than six months of residual service to enter the zone of consideration for appointment as DGP appears, prima facie, to constitute a direct departure from the binding directions issued in Prakash Singh.
The Court granted the Jharkhand Government one week either to reconsider the impugned provision or place before the Court its justification for sustaining the rule.
Justice Bagchi underscored that the Court’s concern was confined to adherence to binding judicial precedent and was not influenced by considerations of political affiliation. On the issue of Mishra’s continuance, CJI Surya Kant observed that the Court would also have to consider the consequences for her appointment if the impugned provision were ultimately invalidated, particularly since the appointment had already created vested legal consequences.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand, questioned the Centre’s decision to challenge the regulatory framework selectively in relation to one State, pointing to allegedly similar provisions in Bihar and West Bengal. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, submitted that the Centre would not adopt any “pick-and-choose” approach.
The Court thereafter directed amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran to examine the statutory and regulatory frameworks governing the appointment of DGPs across all States.
The Centre has alleged that Jharkhand altered its regulatory framework to make officers with less than six months of residual service eligible for consideration as DGP without obtaining the Supreme Court’s leave. It has further contended that while the State invoked Prakash Singh to justify the prescribed two-year tenure for the police chief, it simultaneously departed from other safeguards flowing from the judgment, including the prescribed role of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the selection process.
Ramachandran had recently submitted before the Court that Mishra’s appointment, effected merely a day before her retirement, was inconsistent with the mandate in Prakash Singh.
The latest proceedings could consequently pave the way for a wider judicial scrutiny of the rules and regulatory mechanisms governing the appointment of police chiefs across States, beyond the immediate dispute concerning Jharkhand.
The post Jharkhand DGP appointment rules prima facie conflict with Prakash Singh ruling: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.