Supreme Court questions Jharkhand’s DGP appointment rule, seeks review of similar laws in other states

THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK

New Delhi, October 8: The Supreme Court has questioned the validity of a provision in Jharkhand’s 2025 rules governing the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP), observing that the provision allowing an officer with less than six months of residual service before superannuation to be considered for the post appears, prima facie, to be contrary to the court’s directions in the case.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana directed Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran to examine the legality of the Jharkhand provision as well as the statutes and regulations governing DGP appointments in other states.

The court’s observations have direct implications for the appointment of Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP, as the Bench noted that if the rule itself is annulled, her appointment could be affected.

Court Issues Notice to DGP Tadasha Mishra

The Bench said the possible annulment of the rule could have consequences for Mishra’s appointment and, therefore, she should be given an opportunity to be heard.

The court directed Jharkhand to issue notice to the DGP and said she could appear and assist the court in the matter.

Advertisement

The Bench also gave the Jharkhand government an opportunity to reconsider the provision in question.

“Such provision prima facie seems to be directly at odds with the 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,” the court said.

The matter has been posted after one week. The State has also been given the option of filing a counter-affidavit.

Advertisement

Amicus Asked to Examine Other States’ Rules

The Supreme Court has asked Ramachandran to examine whether other states have also enacted laws or framed regulations that may be inconsistent with the Prakash Singh directions.

The court also directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to assist the Amicus in the exercise.

The CJI clarified the scope of the examination, saying the Amicus would assist the court on the legality and source of power for the rules and, assuming that the rules were validly enacted, whether they conform to the Prakash Singh judgment.

He would also examine whether other states had enacted provisions in derogation of the Supreme Court’s directions.

Kapil Sibal Questions Selective Challenge

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand, questioned the Union government’s decision to challenge the Jharkhand rules, pointing out that other states allegedly have similar provisions.

“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 learned friend has not filed an application in any of those. It’s only Jharkhand,” Sibal submitted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, rejected the suggestion that Jharkhand had been selectively targeted.

Mehta said that if similar provisions existed in other states and were equally inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directions, they too should be examined.

“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,” the Solicitor General submitted.

He said the Union had taken up the Jharkhand rules after they came to its notice and after several communications had been sent to the State pointing out the alleged conflict with the Prakash Singh directions.

Bench: Prakash Singh Directions Cannot Be Diluted

During the hearing, the Bench emphasised that its responsibility was to ensure that the directions issued in the Prakash Singh judgment were not diluted, irrespective of which political party was in power in a state.

When the Bench asked whether Jharkhand was willing to go back to the drawing board and reconsider its rules, Sibal said he had himself advised the State government to do so.

He indicated that the State had no objection to revisiting the provisions.

Amicus Ramachandran also told the court that provisions similar to some aspects of the Jharkhand rules existed in other states. However, he pointed out that one provision in the Jharkhand rules appeared to be unique.

He cautioned that deciding the broader validity of Jharkhand’s rules without hearing other states could potentially have implications for them as well.

Sibal Refers to West Bengal DGP Extension

During the hearing, Sibal also referred to the recent extension granted to the West Bengal DGP and questioned the consistency of the Union’s approach.

He told the Bench that the West Bengal DGP, whose tenure was due to end, had received a six-month extension from the Centre.

“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,” Sibal said.

He suggested that the Union should also examine such appointments if it was challenging state-level rules on DGP tenure.

The reference was to DGP Siddh Nath Gupta, whose tenure was reportedly extended by six months beyond October 31, taking his service up to April 2027.

Background to Jharkhand DGP Appointment Dispute

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 last year.

A PIL was subsequently filed before the Jharkhand High Court by BJP leader and Leader of Opposition Babulal Marandi, challenging provisions of the rules, particularly Rules 4, 5(c) and 10, on the ground that they were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directions in the Prakash Singh case.

The petitioner also approached the Supreme Court through a contempt petition, alleging that Jharkhand had appointed a DGP in violation of the guidelines laid down by the apex court.

The Supreme Court later transferred the High Court proceedings to itself for consideration along with the main matter.

Dispute Over Tadasha Mishra’s Appointment

The dispute intensified after the State appointed Tadasha Mishra as DGP (Head of Police Force) shortly before her scheduled retirement on December 31, 2025.

The petitioner alleged that the appointment effectively allowed her to continue in service for two additional years despite the Prakash Singh requirement concerning the officer’s residual tenure.

It was also alleged that the appointment was made without the names being submitted to the UPSC as required under the applicable framework.

The petitioner further pointed to an amendment to Rule 5(c), claiming that it enabled the calculation of residual service in a manner that facilitated Mishra’s appointment.

According to the petitioner’s case, the amendment was made one day before the notification appointing Mishra as DGP.

The Supreme Court’s latest order keeps the focus on whether Jharkhand’s 2025 rules and the subsequent appointment conform to the principles laid down in Prakash Singh, while also widening the examination to similar provisions in other states.