Shillong: The Meghalaya government is facing questions over the delay in initiating the process for appointing the state’s next Director General of Police (DGP), with the opposition seeking an explanation after the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) reportedly sent repeated communications asking the state to submit the requisite proposal.
The issue came into focus on October 15 after the opposition Voice of the People Party (VPP) questioned why the proposal for preparing a panel of eligible officers for the top police post had allegedly not been submitted despite reminders from the commission.
VPP spokesperson Dr A W Rani asked the National People’s Party (NPP)-led Meghalaya government to disclose the present status of the proposal and explain what steps had been taken to comply with the prescribed procedure for appointing a state police chief.
The demand comes at a crucial time, as the extended tenure of incumbent DGP Idashisha Nongrang is scheduled to end on November 19, 2026. The reported delay has raised questions about the progress of the selection process and whether the necessary formalities will be completed in time.
UPSC’s Repeated Communications Put DGP Selection Under Scrutiny
According to the VPP, the UPSC had communicated with the Meghalaya government in September, informing it that the proposal required for the appointment process was still awaited and calling for compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on the appointment of police chiefs.
A report by United News of India (UNI) published on October 15 provided further details of the correspondence. It reported that a UPSC letter dated September 24, 2026, marked “Reminder-II”, was sent to Meghalaya Chief Secretary Dr Shakil P. Ahammed.
According to the report, the commission had earlier sought the proposal through a communication dated May 14, followed by another reminder on August 5. The September 24 letter was the second reminder, indicating that the commission was still awaiting the necessary submission from the state government.
The communication reportedly urged the state to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions and facilitate the convening of the Empanelment Committee Meeting (ECM), which is required to prepare a panel of eligible officers for consideration for the post of DGP.
The sequence of communications has become central to the opposition’s demand for accountability. The VPP wants the government to explain why the process has allegedly remained pending despite the commission’s repeated requests.
VPP Questions Government’s Response to UPSC Reminders
Questioning the delay, VPP spokesperson Dr A W Rani said the party wanted to know why the state government had not taken the necessary steps despite repeated communications from the UPSC.
“It raises a fundamental question as to why the Meghalaya government has failed to take the necessary steps despite repeated communications from the UPSC,” Rani said.
The party has sought a clear account of the government’s actions, including the status of the proposal, the steps taken to prepare and forward the necessary details of eligible officers, and the reasons for the delay.
For the opposition, the matter goes beyond a routine administrative submission. The selection of the state’s police chief is an important institutional decision, and the process must follow the applicable legal and procedural requirements.
The VPP’s demand places the focus on the government’s responsibility to explain the status of a key appointment process, particularly when the commission has reportedly indicated that the required proposal remains outstanding.
However, the allegation of delay and the questions raised over the reasons for it remain the opposition’s position. The available reports do not establish the government’s explanation for the pending proposal.
Why the Empanelment Committee Meeting Matters
The proposed Empanelment Committee Meeting is an important stage in the procedure for selecting a regular DGP. The state government is required to send the relevant proposal to the UPSC so that the commission can undertake the prescribed empanelment process and prepare a panel of eligible officers.
Under the framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, the state government selects its DGP from among the three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC, based on service length, a very good record and experience in heading a police force.
The process is intended to ensure that the appointment is made through an established procedure rather than being left to an informal or ad hoc arrangement.
The issue of delays in submitting proposals has also received attention at the national level. In February 2026, the Supreme Court, while considering the role of the UPSC in DGP appointments, authorised the commission to remind state governments to submit proposals in a timely manner. It also permitted the UPSC to approach the court for enforcement of its directions if a state failed to submit the required proposal on time.
The court expressed concern that prolonged delays could prevent meritorious and senior officers from being considered for appointment. It emphasised the need to follow the framework established in the Prakash Singh judgment.
Against this backdrop, the reported reminders to Meghalaya assume significance because the submission of the proposal is a necessary step towards completing the selection process.
Idashisha Nongrang’s Extended Tenure Ends on November 19
The timing of the controversy is particularly important because Meghalaya’s incumbent DGP, Idashisha Nongrang, is approaching the end of her extended tenure.
Nongrang was appointed Director General of Police (Head of Police Force), Meghalaya, for a two-year term beginning May 20, 2024, and ending May 19, 2026. The Centre subsequently approved a six-month extension of her service, extending her tenure until November 19, 2026.
With the extended tenure approaching its conclusion, the progress of the process for appointing her successor has become a matter of public interest.
The VPP is seeking clarity on whether the government has prepared the requisite proposal, when it intends to forward it to the UPSC, and what measures are being taken to ensure that the appointment process proceeds in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
The reported correspondence also raises a practical question about the time available for completing the empanelment process before the incumbent’s extended tenure ends. The eventual timeline will depend on the submission of the proposal and the subsequent steps required under the applicable procedure.
Government Asked to Explain Delay and Disclose Selection Status
The VPP has called on the Meghalaya government to provide a clear explanation for the reported delay and disclose the current status of the appointment process.
The party’s demand centres on three issues: why the required proposal has allegedly not been submitted despite repeated UPSC communications, what action the government has taken to comply with the prescribed procedure, and how it intends to ensure that the selection process moves forward before the incumbent DGP’s extended tenure ends.
The opposition’s intervention has brought renewed attention to the administrative responsibilities involved in appointing the head of the state police force. While the UPSC is responsible for the prescribed empanelment process, the state government’s submission of the necessary proposal is an essential step in moving the process forward.
The immediate question, therefore, is whether Meghalaya will submit the required proposal and enable the commission to proceed with the next stages of selection.
As the November 19 deadline approaches, the state government’s response and the progress of the UPSC process are likely to remain central to the debate over the appointment of Meghalaya’s next police chief.
Read also: Meghalaya High Court Contempt Case: Why Lawyers’ Strike Triggered Court Action
