Jharkhand DGP: Amicus tells Supreme Court Tadasha Mishra’s appointment violated Prakash Singh guidelines
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, October 8: Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appointed Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court’s proceedings on DGP…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, October 8: Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appointed Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court’s proceedings on DGP appointments, has told the court that the appointment of **Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP (Head of Police Force) one day before her scheduled retirement violated the guidelines laid down in the judgment.
In his report submitted to the Supreme Court, the Amicus has also raised concerns over several provisions of Jharkhand’s Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025, saying they confer broad discretionary powers on the State government and could potentially undermine the independence intended to be protected by a fixed two-year tenure for the DGP.
Appointment One Day Before Retirement Under Scanner
Mishra was appointed DGP on December 30, 2025, a day before her scheduled retirement on December 31.
The dispute centres on the Supreme Court’s clarification in the Prakash Singh proceedings that only officers having at least six months of residual service should be considered for appointment as DGP.
The Amicus has taken the view that if an amendment to Jharkhand’s 2025 rules has the effect of treating an officer’s service as DGP or Additional DGP after completion of 30 years of service as part of the residual-service calculation, thereby effectively extending a residual tenure of less than six months, such a provision would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Concern Over State’s Power to Remove DGP
The Amicus report has also examined Rule 10 of the Jharkhand rules and the provisions governing the removal of a DGP.
According to the report, the rules confer “broad discretionary power” on the State government to remove a DGP (HoPF). The Amicus has cautioned that such discretion could expose the police chief to undue political pressure and undermine the independence sought to be protected through the statutory two-year tenure.
The report suggests that the provisions should be interpreted in a manner requiring the State to act in accordance with applicable service rules and conditions.
UPSC Role in Selection Found Consistent With Prakash Singh
The Amicus has also examined Rule 4, under which the State government is required to send proposed names to a “Nomination Committee”, instead of the Empanelment Committee constituted by the UPSC under the Prakash Singh framework.
On this aspect, the report does not find the Jharkhand rule contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court’s judgments, noting that the essential requirement of UPSC involvement in the selection process is retained under the 2025 rules.
However, the report has raised concerns over other aspects of the selection procedure.
Three-Month Deadline and External Oversight
The Prakash Singh framework requires states to send proposals to the UPSC sufficiently in advance of an anticipated vacancy.
The Amicus noted that the UPSC guidelines provide for proposals to be sent at least three months before the vacancy. They also contain an external check whereby a state facing difficulty in meeting the deadline can seek clarification from the Supreme Court, except in cases such as death, resignation or premature relieving of a DGP.
According to the report, Jharkhand’s rules should have retained this safeguard or incorporated a similar external mechanism.
The purpose of the three-month requirement, the Amicus observed, is to provide certainty to the selection process and prevent situations in which insufficient time remains to consider eligible officers, potentially resulting in the appointment of an acting DGP contrary to the Prakash Singh-II directions.
‘Unwillingness’ of Officers Also Flagged
The Amicus report has further pointed to the omission of a requirement under the Jharkhand rules concerning an officer’s written unwillingness to accept the DGP post.
Under the earlier framework, the material sent with the State’s proposal included a written document recording the unwillingness of an officer serving in the cadre or on deputation.
The report says that such a document should be placed on record when an officer expresses unwillingness to become or continue as DGP. This, it said, would prevent an officer’s alleged unwillingness from being used as a pretext to favour another officer.
Level-15 Officers and Need for Reasons
The Amicus has also examined Rule 10, which permits a Level-15 officer to be appointed as DGP if no Level-16 officer is available for consideration or if the Nomination Committee is “unable to consider” a Level-16 officer.
The report suggests that the rules should clarify that whenever the Nomination Committee is unable to consider a Level-16 officer, the reasons should be recorded in writing.
It further suggests that such reasons should be capable of examination by the concerned High Court.
Dispute Originated With 2025 Jharkhand Rules
The Jharkhand government notified the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025 in January 2025.
BJP leader and Jharkhand Leader of Opposition Babulal Marandi subsequently challenged the rules before the Jharkhand High Court, particularly Rules 4, 5(c) and 10, alleging that they were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh directions.
A contempt petition was also filed before the Supreme Court alleging that Jharkhand had appointed a DGP contrary to the court’s guidelines.
The Supreme Court subsequently transferred the High Court PIL to itself for consideration along with the main proceedings.
The challenge intensified after Tadasha Mishra was appointed DGP (HoPF) on December 30, 2025, just one day before her scheduled retirement.
The petitioner alleged that the appointment effectively provided her with a two-year extension despite the requirement that an officer selected for the DGP post should have at least six months of service remaining.
It was also alleged that the State had amended Rule 5(c) shortly before the appointment to facilitate the calculation of residual service by taking into account the period spent by an officer as DGP or Additional DGP after completing 30 years of service.
What the Prakash Singh Judgment Says
The Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India laid down a series of directions aimed at insulating the police from unwarranted political interference and improving transparency in police administration.
Among other directions, the court provided for a minimum fixed two-year tenure for the DGP and other senior police officers.
In 2018, the Supreme Court restrained states from appointing acting DGPs and directed states to send proposals to the UPSC sufficiently ahead of an anticipated vacancy. The UPSC was directed to prepare a panel of three senior officers based on factors including length of service, a very good record and relevant experience.
In March 2019, the Supreme Court clarified that only officers with a minimum of six months of service remaining should be considered for appointment as DGP and that the UPSC’s recommendation and preparation of the panel should be based purely on merit.
The present Jharkhand dispute centres on whether the State’s 2025 rules and the appointment of Mishra are consistent with these binding directions.
The Supreme Court will now consider the Amicus report along with the responses of the State, the Union and other concerned parties.
