New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that Jharkhand’s process for appointing its Director General of Police (DGP) prima facie violated its landmark Prakash Singh judgment, which requires consideration of officers with at least six months of residual service for the top police post.
The court issued notice to Tadasha Mishra, who was appointed Jharkhand DGP a day before her retirement, giving her an opportunity to present her case before any decision is taken on the validity of the appointment.
The observations came while a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard an application filed by the Centre challenging the state’s DGP appointment regulations.
SC Asks Jharkhand to Revisit 2025 Regulations
The Supreme Court asked the Jharkhand government to revisit its Selection and Appointment of DGP (Head of Police Force) Regulations, 2025. It also said that if the state intended to defend the regulations, it could file a counter-affidavit.
The bench noted that if the regulations were annulled, 1994 batch IPS officer Tadasha Mishra’s appointment could also be set aside. It therefore considered it appropriate to give her an opportunity to be heard.
Read Also: Jharkhand: Supreme Court to Hear Centre’s Contempt Plea Over Tadasha Mishra’s DGP Appointment
“In the event of the regulation being annulled, the appointment of Tadasha Mishra… would be required to be set aside. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to accord her one opportunity of being heard,” the bench said, directing the Jharkhand government to serve notice on her so that she could appear before the court.
Centre Challenges Removal of Residual Tenure Requirement
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that Jharkhand had amended its regulations in 2025 to remove the residual tenure requirement associated with the appointment of a DGP.
According to the Centre, two DGP appointments had subsequently been made despite the officers concerned having only a few days of service remaining before retirement.
The Centre contended that the state’s regulatory framework went beyond what was permitted under the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh judgment, which laid down guidelines for police reforms, including the selection and tenure of state police chiefs.
Jharkhand Questions Centre’s Selective Challenge
Appearing for Jharkhand, senior advocate Kapil Sibal objected to what he described as the Centre’s selective targeting of the state’s regulations.
He argued that several other states also had provisions that, in his view, conflicted with the mandate laid down in the Prakash Singh judgment.
The proceedings will examine whether Jharkhand’s 2025 regulations comply with the Supreme Court’s directions and what consequences may follow for the appointment made under those rules.
Read also: Why Did The Supreme Court Refuse The Centre’s Plea In The Great Nicobar Project Case?
