Supreme Court expands scrutiny of DGP appointment laws nationwide after Jharkhand questions Centre’s ‘special affection’

Jharkhand’s Hemant Soren government locked horns with the Centre in the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 8, 2026) over the appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs), calling out the Union government’s “special affection” for the State when others like Bihar had “worse” appointment laws.

The confrontation erupted after the Union government moved the court against Jharkhand’s 2025 law governing the appointment of DGPs.

SC to hear Centre’s plea against Jharkhand DGP appointments Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, sought a judicial declaration that the ‘Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police), Regulation of 2025’ breached the apex court’s 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh versus Union of India.

The 2006 judgment had mandated insulation of the police force from political influence.

It laid down a transparent DGP appointment process followed by a minimum tenure of two years in office.

Only senior police officers with a residual tenure of six months before normal retirement could be considered for the top post.

To ensure timely compliance, State governments were directed to submit service credentials of eligible IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months before an incumbent’s retirement.

The Centre contended that the appointment of Jharkhand’s first woman DGP and incumbent Tadasha Mishra under the 2025 Regulation violated the Prakash Singh verdict.

Observing that the 2025 Regulation appeared prima facie non-compliant, the Bench observed that the flaw could imperil Ms.

Mishra’s tenure.

However, the Bench granted Ms.

Mishra an opportunity to state her case on November 3, the next date of hearing.

At this juncture, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Jharkhand, turned the tables on the Centre by asking why it had no similar complaints about other States.

He highlighted that West Bengal’s DGP was appointed by the Election Commission of India in March 2026 even though the officer was due to retire the next month.

Mr.

Sibal accused the Centre of double standards, saying the Union government had extended his tenure by six months.

“The Solicitor General may file a petition against that appointment [West Bengal] as well,” Mr.

Sibal challenged.

Mehta clarified that he was holding the brief for the Centre, not himself.

Faced with the State’s pushback, he orally stated that “if there are any other States, irrespective of the party in power, if they are as bad or worse, they must go.

I cannot be choosy.

I only wanted to convey that the Union of India does not choose States”.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench, said the court was not bothered about who was in power in a particular State.

“Our sole focus is that the law declared in Prakash Singh should not be diluted,” Justice Bagchi said.

Mehta even suggested that the court must issue notice to all States to see if their laws were in line with the Prakash Singh judgment.

Consequently, the court requested its amicus curiae, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, to take the help of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and scrutinise police laws and DGP appointments nationwide for breaches of the 2006 verdict.

The court asked the Jharkhand government, in the meanwhile, to return to the drawing board and revisit its 2025 Regulation.