SC Questions Jharkhand Rule Allowing DGP Appointment with Minimal Service
The Supreme Court has questioned Jharkhand's rule allowing DGP appointments even if the officer has less than six months of service remaining.
The Supreme Court of India has raised serious questions regarding the legality of a Jharkhand state rule that allows an officer to be appointed as the Director General of Police (DGP) even if they have less than six months of service remaining before retirement. The apex court observed that this provision appears, on the face of it, to be in direct conflict with the landmark legal principles established in the Prakash Singh case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana was hearing an application filed by the Central government. The Centre is challenging the "Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulations, 2025," as well as all DGP appointments made under these new rules.
Conflict with Prakash Singh Mandate
The core of the legal dispute lies in whether state-level regulations can dilute the safeguards intended by the Supreme Court to ensure stable tenures for police chiefs. In the Prakash Singh judgment, the court laid down specific guidelines to protect the independence and tenure of the head of the police force.
“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 bench noted during the proceedings.
The court emphasized that its duty is to ensure that these vital safeguards are not undermined by individual states. The bench has now sought input from an amicus curiae to determine if DGP appointment laws in other Indian states also conform to the principles established in the Prakash Singh case.
Impact on Current DGP Tadasha Mishra
The legal challenge carries significant personal implications for the current Jharkhand DGP, Tadasha Mishra. The Centre has specifically challenged her appointment, alleging that the state amended regulations to remove the mandatory six-month residual-service requirement just before her selection. Records indicate she was appointed on December 30, 2025, only a day before her scheduled superannuation.
The bench acknowledged the delicate nature of the situation, noting that a decision to invalidate the rule could directly affect her position. “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,” the court remarked.
Consequently, the Supreme Court has issued a notice to Tadasha Mishra and granted the Jharkhand government one week to either reconsider the controversial provision or file a formal response.
The Centre vs. Jharkhand: A Legal Tug-of-War
The Central government's application highlights several grievances regarding the state's recent administrative actions:
- Selective Implementation: The Centre alleges Jharkhand has selectively applied the Prakash Singh judgment to grant DGPs a two-year tenure while ignoring the mandated selection process involving the UPSC.
- Procedural Violations: The plea challenges the appointment of IPS officers Anurag Gupta and Tadasha Mishra, alleging they were appointed in violation of established selection procedures.
- Regulatory Challenges: The Centre is seeking a declaration that all appointments made under the 2025 Regulation are illegal.
Representing Jharkhand, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal stated that the state has no objection to revisiting the rules. He also questioned why the Centre was specifically targeting Jharkhand when similar provisions might exist in other states. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, maintained a firm stance, stating that the Centre would oppose any state law that contradicts the Prakash Singh directions, regardless of the political party in power.