New Delhi, October 8, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the validity of Jharkhand’s rules for appointing the Director General of Police (DGP), observing prima facie that a key provision may not be consistent with the law laid down in the landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India case.
The court indicated that if the disputed rules are struck down, the appointment of incumbent DGP Tadasha Mishra could also be affected.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, however, issued notice to Mishra, giving her an opportunity to present her case before any decision is taken.
The Central government has challenged the validity of Jharkhand’s DGP and Inspector General of Police (Head of Police Force) Selection and Appointment Regulations, 2025, notified on January 8, 2025.
The Centre has argued that the regulations were framed without the Supreme Court’s approval and do not fully comply with the guidelines laid down in the Prakash Singh judgment.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state, questioned why the Centre had challenged only Jharkhand’s regulations when similar provisions were in force in several other states. He argued that some states had provisions that were even more questionable.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, rejected the suggestion that Jharkhand was being selectively targeted. He submitted that any state rules inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directions should be removed.
The Centre maintained that it had repeatedly informed the Jharkhand government that its process for appointing the DGP was contrary to the Prakash Singh guidelines.
The Union government has also questioned the appointment of former Jharkhand DGP Anurag Gupta, who was appointed on February 2, 2025, despite having only around three months of service remaining before his scheduled retirement on April 30, 2025.
Mishra was appointed DGP on December 30, 2025, a day after the state government amended the regulations to remove the requirement that candidates must have at least six months of residual service. She was scheduled to retire on December 31, 2025.
The Supreme Court observed that the disputed provision appeared prima facie inconsistent with the principles laid down in Prakash Singh and said that if the regulation was ultimately struck down, Mishra’s appointment could also be annulled.
In view of the possible impact on her appointment, the court directed that Mishra be given an opportunity to be heard and asked the Jharkhand government to serve notice on her.
The court also gave the state government liberty to reconsider the impugned regulation and file its response.
The matter has been posted for further hearing after one week, when Mishra and the Jharkhand government will place their submissions before the court.
FOLLOW NOW
