UPSC Can Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against States Failing To Give Timely Proposals For DGP Appointments: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasised that State Governments should not delay sending proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for the appointment of Director General of Police.

Disapproving of the trend of appointment of 'Acting DGPs' in some states, the Court authorised the UPSC to send reminders to the States for sending proposals for DGP appointments. If there is a default by the States, the UPSC will be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings.

According to the 2006 direction in the Prakash Singh case, the Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission.

As per the 2018 directions in the Prakash Singh case, the States must submit their proposals three months ahead of the retirement of the incumbent DGP, following which the UPSC should prepare a panel of names, from which the State must make the appointment. However, in view of the delay on the part of the States in submitting names, Acting DGPs are appointed in many states.

The UPSC said that this practice deprived meritorious and senior officers of the opportunity of being considered for the post of DGP.

Endorsing the objections raised by the UPSC to the appointment of 'acting/ad hoc DGPs', the Court observed in its order :

"We fully endorse the concerns raised by the UPSC, consequently... in order to ensure that there is no violation of the directions in Prakash Singh Case, we hereby give authority to the UPSC to firstly write to the State Governments to send timely proposals for appointment of regular DGPs, whenever such occassion arises, and in the event the proposal is not timely submitted, we direct the UPSC to move an appropriate application before this Court in Prakash Singh's Case. It goes without saying that necessary consequences, including accountability for those responsible for the delay, will follow." 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by the UPSC challenging the direction of the Telangana High Court to complete the DGP selection process within 4 weeks.

At the outset, the CJI remarked that if the challenge of the UPSC against the direction is accepted, the consequence would be that the state of Telangana would have no active DGP.  The CJI asked why the UPSC did not consider such a consequence before filing the present plea. 

To which, Sr Advocate Naresh Kaushik, appearing for the UPSC, argued that the State has not followed the 3 months mandatory period prescribed as the directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.  

The CJI asked why the UPSC didn't file a contempt against the state for violation of directions. 

Kaushik sought 15 days to comply with the directions and also urged the bench to clarify that the UPSC would be entitled to seek recourse to proceedings before the Top Court whenever such violations of directions take place in future.  

"Please do not be trapped by the states, they do not want DGP, they want some acting DGP, adhoc DGP, that suits them," CJI told the UPSC counsel.

The bench proceeded to pass the following order, granting an additional 4 weeks to UPSC to comply with the High Court directions. The Court also noted that though UPSC's objections were relevant, it only aggravated the delay in appointing fresh DGPs, giving impetus to adhoc appointments. 

" We appreciate the objection of the Commission that there is a serious omission on the part of the State in not submitting a timely proposal for the convening of ECM. Various senior police officers have, in the meanwhile been retired on superannuation or have been overlooked/ superseded by the State." 

However, we find that the appellant Commission's objection will aggravate the situation and indirectly will help in the appointing states in not making appointments of a regular DGP . That being contrary to the scheme and spirit of the mandate given by this Court in the Prakash Singh Case, we hold without any hesitation, that the Commission should convene the ECM at the earliest make recommendations for the appointment of the DGP for Telangana at the earliest. 

It goes without saying that the UPSC shall determine the eligibility of the officers who are currently under consideration and shall accordingly determine...for this, the Commission is grnated additional 4 weeks' time."

The bench also observed the submission of the UPSC that Telangana is not the only state showing disregard for the directions in the Prakash Singh Case and other states are also delaying the DGP appointments, and Ad hoc DGP are being appointed. 

The bench further ordered that UPSC, in order to avoid delayed appointments, will now have the authority to write to State Governments reminding for timely proposals, and if the states still do not comply, UPSC can move an application of contempt before the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh Case. The Court stressed that in cases of delay, accountability of erring persons will be pinned. 

Case Details : UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs. T DHANGOPAL RAO| SLP(C) No. 004668 - / 2026