The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that regulations governing the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Jharkhand appeared to be in conflict with the principles laid down in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observation while 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.
In particular, the Central government flagged that the regulations permit the appointment of police officers with less than six months till retirement to be appointed as DGPs.
In March 2019, the top court passed an order as part of the Prakash Singh case (on police reforms) by which it clarified that only officers who have at least six months of service remaining prior to their retirement should be recommended to the post of DGP.
The Centre flagged a violation of this principle in the appointment of DGPs in the State, including its incumbent DGP Tadasha Mishra, who was appointed to the post for a two year term a day before she was slated to retire from service.
The Court today said that the appointment appears to conflict with the Prakash Singh ruling.
"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 Court said.
The Court proceeded to grant the Jharkhand government one week's time to either revisit its DGP appointment rule or defend it.
"Our concern is not who is in power at the Centre or State. Our bounden duty is to ensure that the law declared by this Court is not diluted," said Justice Bagchi.
The Court also sought a response from DGP Tadasha Mishra.
"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," explained CJI Kant.
The Jharkhand government said that the Central government was singling out one State and claimed that DGP appointments in other States like West Bengal and Bihar also should be examined.
The Court assured that the DGP appointment process in all States would be examined by it.
Hence, 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.
IPS officer Tadasha Mishra was appointed Jharkhand's DGP for a two year period on December 30, 2025, on the eve of her retirement. She had earlier served as acting DGP, after IPS officer Anurag Gupta voluntarily resigned from the post.
The Central government has questioned the validity of both DGP appointments. Both officers did not have the residual six month month service period specified by the Supreme Court for being eligible to be considered for the DGP post, the Centre highlighted.
Amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran too had recently told the Court that appointing Tadasha Mishra one day before her retirement was contrary to the principles laid down in the Prakash Singh case.
In its application, the Centre stated that Jharkhand amended its rules to permit such a state of affairs without first getting the Supreme Court’s leave to do so, despite clear directions that the top court must be approached if any State or the Centre seeks a modification of the principles in the Prakash Singh case.
As per the plea, Jharkhand “selectively” relied on the Prakash Singh judgment to confer a two-year tenure on its DGPs while departing from Court-mandated selection procedures including the forwarding of potential appointees to the UPSC.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Jharkhand government, questioned why the Central government was singling out one State.
"Why should the Solicitor General be enthusiastic to challenge it? The government has statutes in Bihar and other States which are worse and which are pending before this Court," he said.
Representing the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta denied adopting any pick-and-choose approach.
"If there are other States, irrespective of the party in power, and their laws are as bad or worse, they must go. I cannot be choosy," he said.
"I must then bring those laws to your notice since you have not noticed them," retorted Sibal.
"That is the beauty of the adversarial system," quipped Justice Bagchi.
Sibal went on to observe that the DGP appointment in West Bengal also deserved scrutiny.
"In West Bengal, the officer who was DGP was to retire in April. He was appointed DGP in March and the Central Government itself extended his term by six months. I only indicate this to my learned friend (SG Mehta). Perhaps he will file a petition against that appointment as well. I hope the Government of India will not be defending that appointment," he said.
The Court, in turn, assured that the DGP appointment process in all States would be examined by it.
"The learned amicus, who is examining the regulations formulated by the State of Jharkhand concerning appointment of the Director General of Police, is also requested to look into the statutes, rules and regulations enacted by other States and the consequences of appointments made by those States," the Court directed.
[Read Live Coverage]