Supreme Court Questions Jharkhand DGP Appointment Rule, Asks Amicus To Examine Validity Of Other States' Rules
In the Jharkhand DGP Appointment case, the Supreme Court today passed an order calling on Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, to examine the statutes/rules pertaining to DGP appointments in other states.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana prima facie observed that a 2025 Jharkhand rule, which allowed an officer with residual service of less than 6 months before superannuation to be considered for DGP Appointment, was contrary to the law laid down by the Court in Prakash Singh case.
It was referring to the rule contained in Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Regulations, 2025.
Considering that annulment of the rule could affect the appointment of Jharkhand DGP, Smt Tadasha Mishra, it issued notice to Mishra, so she can have an opportunity of being heard. The bench also said that in the meantime, Jharkhand government may revisit the offending rule. In the alternative, it may file a counter-affidavit.
The order was dictated thus:
"Such provision prima facie seems to be directly in teeth of law laid down in Prakash Singh. In the event of the rule being annulled, appointment of Smt. Tadasha Mishra, DGP of Jharkhand, would be required to be set aside. We therefore deem it apt. to accord her opportunity to be heard. Jharkhand to issue notice to her so she can appear and assist the court. Meanwhile, state may revisit the offending rule. Post after 1 week. Alternatively, State shall be at liberty to file counter. Amicus may assist us on validity of the Rule formulated by Jharkhand with respect to appointment of DGP. He shall also look into statutes/regulations and consequential appointments made by other states also. UPSC to assist the Amicus in this regard."
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Jharkhand, questioned the Union's move to file an application challenging the Jharkhand Rules. He claimed that there are similar laws enacted by other states but the Union had not chosen to challenge those.
"Why should the Solicitor General challenge it? Why should the Solicitor General be enthusiastic to challenge it? There is statute in Bihar, statutes in other parts which are worse and which are pending before this Court. My ld. friend has not filed an application in any of those. It's only Jharkhand", Sibal submitted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the action saying that all laws which were as bad as or worse than the Jharkhand DGP Appointment rules must go. He said that the Union did not "choose" among states and the application was filed after the Jharkhand rule came to notice and multiple letters had been written to the state pointing out the conflict between the rules and Prakash Singh directions.
"I can make a statement. If there are any other States, irrespective of the party in power, if they are as bad or worse, they must go. I can't be choosy. I only wanted to convey that the Union of India does not choose States. This has come to our notice and I am challenging it. But if other laws are equally bad or worse, they also must go", the SG said.
Hearing the parties, the bench observed that its duty was to ensure that the Prakash Singh directions were not "diluted", regardless of who is the political executive in the state.
When the bench asked Sibal whether the state would be open to going back to the drawing board (revisiting the rules), the senior counsel said that he had himself advised the government to do that. He said that the state had no issue in revisiting the rules.
Amicus Raju Ramachandran also addressed the bench, underlining that rules/statutes of other states had provisions similar to the Jharkhand Rules. He however added that there was 1 provision on DGP appointment unique to the Jharkhand Rules and urged that a decision on the general rules of Jharkhand may prejudice other states without hearing them.
The CJI eventually told the Amicus,
"You will assist us on the legality and source of power [for the rules], assuming that the rules have been validly enacted within that power, whether they are in conformity with Prakash Singh. You will also assist us on whether some other States have also enacted laws in derogation of Prakash Singh."
Before parting, Sibal also pointed out to the Court that a West Bengal DGP's tenure, which was soon to expire, had been extended by the Union itself. "I must just indicate that in West Bengal, the officer DGP was to retire in April. He was appointed DGP in March and the Central Government itself has extended his term by six months. Just to indicate this to my learned friend that maybe he'd file a petition against that appointment as well. I am sure the Government of India will be defending that appointment" he said.
Sibal was referring to DGP Siddh Nath Gupta, whose 6-month extension beyond October 31 was recently approved, thereby extending his service till April, 2027.
Background
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.