The Supreme Court on Thursday said the appointment of Jharkhand director general of police (DGP) Tadasha Mishra is in violation of its landmark judgment in Prakash Singh case that required a residual tenure of at least six months for an officer to be considered for appointment as DGP, and sought a response from Mishra, who was appointed as the state police chief a day before her retirement.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing the Centre’s application challenging the legality of Mishra’s appointment made under the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025.
The Prakash Singh case relates to the Supreme Court’s monitoring of police reforms, in which it has issued a series of directions since 2006 aimed at insulating the police from undue political interference and ensuring transparent, merit-based appointments and fixed tenures for senior police officers. Appearing for the Union government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the Centre kept writing to the Jharkhand government that its DGP appointment is in violation of the top court’s 2006 judgment. Under the landmark judgment, an officer must have at least six months of residual service to be considered for the post of DGP to ensure stability and merit. “The Union of India does not choose any state. This has come to our notice so we have filed an application. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Jharkhand government, objected to the Centre’s intervention when the rules are already under consideration. “Why should the solicitor general be so enthusiastic to challenge our Rules. The court directed the amicus to apprise it of all such laws and rules and the consequent appointments made based on those rules. The court directed the UPSC to respond in this regard.
In the event of the rules being annulled, appointment of Mishra as DGP of Jharkhand would be required to be set aside, the court said, directing the state government to issue her a notice to respond in the case. “The state of Jharkhand will be at liberty to revisit the offending rules,” it said, posting the matter on November 3. If they can point out any other state law or rules that is bad, that should also go,” he said. There are much worse statutes in Bihar which are pending consideration in this court,” Sibal said. “If we find there is a state which has a rule violative of our order, we will hear them too”.
