Appointmnet Of Officer As Jharkhand DGP 1 Day Before Retirement Violated SC Guidelines : Amicus To Supreme Court
Amicus further states that Jharkhand Rules give broad discretionary power to the State to remove DGP, which can result in undue political pressure.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae in the DGP appointments matter, has filed a report before the Supreme Court stating that the appointment of Ms. Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP (Head of Police Force) one day prior to her retirement was in violation of the Prakash Singh guidelines.
The Report also states that Jharkhand's 2025 Rules pertaining to DGP appointments confer "broad discretionary power" to the State government to remove a DGP (HoPF), which could result in undue political pressure on the officer and undermine the independence provided by the statutory two-year tenure. The Amicus suggests that the Rules should be interpreted as requiring the State to act in accordance with rules related to service conditions.
Further, according to the Amicus, if an amendment to Jharkhand's 2025 Rules have the effect of extending an officer's residual tenure of less than 6 months, by taking into consideration the period of service spent as DGP/AGP after completing 30 years of service, the same would be in violation of the Court's Prakash Singh judgment (which contemplated actual residual service period of 6 months when considering appointment as DGP).
To recap, in January, 2025, the Jharkhand government notified the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025. A PIL was filed before the Jharkhand High Court by opposition leader Babulal Marandi challenging these Rules, particularly Rules 4, 5(c) and 10, as violative of the judgment in first Prakash Singh case (Prakash Singh-1).
The PIL-petitioner also preferred a contempt petition before the Supreme Court, contending that Jharkhand had appointed a DGP in violation of the Court's guidelines in Prakash Singh case. The top Court transferred the High Court PIL to itself to be heard alongwith the main matter. Subsequently, the PIL-petitioner filed an application before the Court contending that pending adjudication of the transferred case, Jharkhand had appointed a new DGP (HoPF) one day prior to her retirement on 31.12.2025, essentially providing her a 2-year extension of service.
It was contended that this was in violation of the direction that the officer must have atleast 6 months' residual service. The petitioner further claimed that the appointment was unilateral, by way of a notification, without submitting the names to UPSC. It was also highlighted that the State amended the 2025 Rules to facilitate the appointment, insofar as a proviso was added to Rule 5(c) to include time spent by an officer in the rank of DGP or AGP after 30 years' service in the calculation of residual service period.
The petitioner underlined that the amendment in the Rules was carried out 1 day prior to the notification of Ms. Mishra's appointment as DGP.
The Amicus Report
Besides the aforesaid, the Amicus report addresses Rule 4 of the 2025 Jharkhand Rules, as per which the State government must send the proposed names to a "Nomination Committee" (as opposed to the Empanelment Committee constituted by UPSC in terms of Prakash Singh judgment). The Amicus says that Rule 4 does not violate the spirit of the judgments in Prakash Singh, as the essential requirement of UPSC involvement in the process is met with in the 2025 Rules.
With regard to the timeline for sending proposals (atleast 3 months in advance of a vacancy), the Report notes that Rule 5 (xii) of the UPSC Guidelines (framed after the Prakash Singh judgment) provided a check on the violation of the 3-month deadline. As per these guidelines, a State can seek clarification from the Supreme Court for delayed submission except death, resignation or premature relieving of a DGP.
The Amicus says that this provision, or a similar external check, should have been retained by Jharkhand in its Rules. The purpose of the 3-month deadline, it is stated, is to ensure that there is certainty in the process and to avoid a situation where insufficient time is left for consideration of eligible officers (leading to appointment of an acting DGP in violation of Prakash Singh-II).
On the material to be sent alongwith the State government's proposal, the Amicus Report notes that the requirement of sending a written copy of a document showing "unwillingness" of an officer (who is posted in the cadre or on deputation) for appointment as DGP has been excluded from the list of materials under the 2025 Rules. It is stated that where such an officer expresses "unwillingness" to be appointed as DGP, or to continue as DGP after appointment, the document sent by such officer must be placed on record to avoid "unwillingness" of the officer being used as a pretext for favoring another officer.
The Report further observes that under Rule 10 of the 2025 Rules, appointment of a Level-15 officer as DGP is permissible if - (a) no officer in Level-16 is available for consideration, or (b) the Nomination Committee is "unable to consider" any such officer for inclusion in the list. It is suggested that the relevant rules may be clarified so that in case the Nomination Committee is "unable to consider" a Level-16 officer, the reasons are recorded in writing and may be examined by the state High Court.
Prakash Singh Judgement Of 2006 & Subsequent Developments
The Apex Court, while deciding a PIL filed by two former DGPs Prakash Singh and NK Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including setting up of a state security commission, to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police. The bench comprising then CJI YK Sabharwal and Justices CK Thakkar, PK Balasubramanyan held that the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent, and officers like DGPs and Superintendents of Police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.
Subsequently, in July 2018, the Court restrained all the states from appointing the Director General of Police (DGP) in an acting capacity, observing that such a concept is not perceptible on an analysis of its 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh case. The bench headed by then CJI Dipak Misra and comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.M. Khanwilkar required that endeavor be made by all concerned to ensure that the person so selected and appointed shall continue to hold the post despite his superannuation.
However, it was clarified that the said direction may not be construed to mean that the UPSC may empanel, for the purpose of selection as the DGP, only those officers who have a clear 2 years of service remaining.
The bench also obligated all states to send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancy to the UPSC well in time, that is, 3 months prior to the retirement of the incumbent, whereupon, the UPSC shall prepare the panel of the three senior most officers of the Department based on their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force, as stipulated by the Prakash Singh judgment.
Finally, the panel so prepared was directed to be intimated to the state, which shall then immediately select and appoint one of the persons empanelled.
The Bench also directed that any legislations/rules that may have been framed by the states which affect the 2006 judgment shall remain in abeyance, granting liberty to any state having an issue with these directions to approach the Court with an application for amendment.
On March 13, 2019, the bench of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi clarified the 2018 directives, stating that only officers who have a minimum of six months tenure left in service should be considered for the post of Director General of Police (DGP). It further added that the recommendation for post of DGP by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and preparation of the panel should be purely on the basis of merit.
Case: PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA WP(C) No. 310/1996