Supreme Court extends review of DGP appointment laws nationwide after Jharkhand challenges Centre’s ‘special favour’
The Supreme Court, in a 2019 order, clarified that only senior police officers with six months of remaining tenure before proper retirement should be considered for the post of DGP. File | Photo credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
Jharkhand’s Hemant Soren government on Thursday (October 8, 2026) approached the Center in the Supreme Court over the appointment of directors general of police (DGPs), pointing out the Union government’s “special affection” for the state when others like Bihar had “worse” appointment laws.
The confrontation erupted after the Union government moved the court against the Jharkhand Act 2025 regulating the appointment of DGP.
Appearing before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Centre’s Advocate General Tushar Mehta sought a judicial declaration that the “Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Chief of Police) Order, 2025” violated the judgments of the Supreme Court of India v Union of India in 2006 in Prague 2006.
A 2006 ruling ordered the police force to be insulated from political influence. It has laid down a transparent process for the appointment of the DGP, after which he will hold office for a minimum of two years. Only senior police officers with six months of remaining service before proper retirement could be considered for the top post. To ensure timely compliance, state governments have been directed to submit the service credentials of eligible IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months prior to the holder’s retirement.
The Center alleged that the appointment of Jharkhand’s first woman DGP and incumbent Tadash Mishra under the 2025 order violated the Prakash Singh verdict.
The bench observed that the 2025 order appeared to be flawed on its face and observed that the flaw could jeopardize Ms. Mishra’s tenure. However, the Bench gave Ms. Mishra an opportunity to state her case on November 3, the next date of hearing.
At this point, senior advocate Kapil Sibal of Jharkhand turned the tables on the Center by asking why it did not have similar complaints against other states.
He pointed out that the DGP of West Bengal was appointed by the Election Commission of India in March 2026 even though he was due to retire next month. Accusing the Center of double standards, Mr. Sibal said the Union government had extended his tenure by six months.
“The Solicitor General may also file a petition against this appointment (of West Bengal),” urged Mr. Sibal.
Mr. Mehta clarified that he was holding the brief for the center, not himself. In the face of opposition from the state, he verbally stated that “if there are any other states, irrespective of the party in power, if they are as bad or worse, they must go. I cannot be picky. I only wanted to convey that the Union of India does not pick states”.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said from the bench that the court is not bothered about who is in power in a particular state. “Our only objective is that the law declared in Prakash Singh should not be diluted,” Justice Bagchi said.
Mr. Mehta even suggested that the court must issue a notice to all states to see if their laws are in line with the Prakash Singh judgment.
As a result, the court asked its amicus curiae, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, to take the help of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and probe the police laws and appointments of DGPs nationwide for violation of the 2006 verdict.
Meanwhile, the court asked the Jharkhand government to go back to the drawing board and reconsider its 2025 order.
Published – 8 Oct 2026 15:23 IST