SC prima facie finds Jharkhand DGP appointment rules contrary to earlier ruling

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday prima facie found Jharkhand's rules governing the appointment of the DGP to be contrary to its earlier directions in the Prakash Singh case and sought the response of incumbent DGP Tadasha Mishra, whose appointment could be impacted if the rules are eventually set aside. The state government also indicated that it was willing to revisit the rules.

A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a challenge to the "Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025", notified by the state on January 8, 2025. The challenge raises questions over the manner in which Jharkhand amended its framework for the selection of the police chief and subsequently appointed Mishra as DGP on December 30, 2025, a day before her scheduled superannuation.

Also Read: Supreme Court seeks Centre's view on creation of corpus fund for treatment of SMA patients


The SC's directions in the Singh case require states to send proposals for the appointment of a DGP to the UPSC sufficiently in advance of a vacancy. The UPSC is required to prepare a panel of eligible officers on the basis of their service record, seniority and experience, from which the state government is to appoint the police chief.

The apex court subsequently directed that states should not appoint acting DGPs and that the selected police chief should ordinarily have a minimum fixed tenure of two years. In March 2019, it further clarified that officers considered for appointment should have at least six months of residual service.

Jharkhand, however, amended its 2025 regulations shortly before appointing Mishra, removing the six-month residual service requirement. Mishra was consequently appointed despite being due to retire the following day.

The state government, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, told the bench that it would reconsider the rules. The SC will consider the validity of the 2025 regulations and the consequential appointments in further proceedings.