Supreme Court finds a Jharkhand rule on DGP appointment prima facie at odds with the Prakash Singh directions
9 October 2026
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the Jharkhand Director General of Police appointment matter in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 310/1996.
The Court prima facie found that a provision allowing an officer with less than six months of residual service to be considered for appointment as Director General of Police runs contrary to the Prakash Singh directions.
The rules in question are the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025, notified in January 2025.
The Court directed notice to the serving Director General of Police, Tadasha Mishra, so that she can be heard, since annulment of the rule would unsettle her appointment.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the amicus curiae, was asked to examine the validity and source of power of the Jharkhand rule and whether other States have similar provisions.
The Union Public Service Commission was directed to assist the amicus curiae, and the matter was listed after one week.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Jharkhand and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union.
In plain words
Amicus curiae Amicus curiae — A lawyer appointed by a court to assist it rather than to represent a party.
DGP Director General of Police — The head of a State police force.
Prakash Singh judgment Prakash Singh v. Union of India — The 2006 Supreme Court judgment that laid down binding directions for police reform in the States.
UPSC Union Public Service Commission — The constitutional body that, under the Prakash Singh directions, empanels officers for appointment as DGP.