SC questions validity of Jharkhand DGP appointment rules, issues notice to Tadasha Mishra

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, hearing the matter of DGP appointment rules in Jharkhand, on Thursday observed that prima facie it feels that a key provision of the DGP appointment rules is not consistent with the law laid down by it in the landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India case.

The court indicated that if the rules framed by the state government are struck down, the appointment of incumbent DGP Tadasha Mishra could also be invalidated.

It, however, issued a notice to Mishra, giving her an opportunity to present her case.

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.

It said the regulations were framed without the Supreme Court's approval and do not fully comply with the guidelines laid down in the Prakash Singh case.

During the hearing before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioned why the Centre had targeted only Jharkhand's regulations when similar provisions existed in several other states.

He argued that some states had even more questionable provisions in force.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, contended that the Union government was not selectively targeting Jharkhand and maintained that any state rules inconsistent with the Supreme Court's directions should be removed.

He submitted that the Centre had repeatedly informed the Jharkhand government that its DGP appointment process violated the Prakash Singh guidelines.

The Centre has also questioned the appointment of former Jharkhand DGP Anurag Gupta, who was appointed on February 2, 2025, despite having only about three months of service left before his 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 of a minimum of six months' residual service for DGP candidates. She was due to retire on December 31, 2025.

The top court observed that the disputed provision appeared prima facie inconsistent with the law laid down in Prakash Singh.

It said that if the regulation is ultimately set aside, Mishra's appointment may also have to be annulled.

Considering this possibility, the court directed that she be given an opportunity to be heard and asked the Jharkhand government to serve notice on her.

The court 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, during which both Mishra and the Jharkhand government will place their submissions before the court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]