SC flags Jharkhand DGP rules, seeks Tadasha Mishra's reply

The Supreme Court has questioned Jharkhand's DGP appointment rules and sought Tadasha Mishra's response. The case could reset her appointment and test whether states can bypass the Prakash Singh safeguards.Newdelhi,Oct 8, 2026 16:44 ISTThe Supreme Court on Thursday said the rules framed for the appointment of the Jharkhand director general of police appeared to conflict with its earlier verdict in the Prakash Singh case, and sought the response of senior IPS officer Tadasha Mishra, who was appointed state police chief a day before her retirement. The court said her appointment could have to be set aside if the rules were struck down.A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was told by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Jharkhand government, that the state would revisit the rules. The matter arose on the Centre's challenge to the "Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025" and to appointments made under it.The bench said it was giving Mishra an opportunity to file her response as she would be affected if the rules were set aside. "The provision prima facie seems to be directly in the teeth of law laid down in Prakash Singh case (verdict). In the event of the rule being annulled, appointment of Tadasha Mishra, DGP of Jharkhand, would be required to be set aside. We therefore deem it appropriate to accord her the opportunity to be heard," the bench said.Under the Prakash Singh judgement, an officer must have at least six months of residual service to be considered for the post of DGP so as to ensure stability and merit. The bench also asked the Jharkhand government to issue notice to Mishra so that she can appear and assist the court. "Meanwhile, the state may revisit the offending rule. Post after one week. Alternatively, the State shall be at liberty to file counter affidavit, if any," the bench said.The court asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who has been appointed amicus curiae in the case, to assist it on the validity of the rules framed by Jharkhand for the appointment of the DGP. It said Ramachandran should also examine statutes or regulations and consequential appointments made by other states, and that the UPSC would assist him in this exercise. Chief Justice Kant said that if any appointment had been made in contradiction of the Supreme Court's decision, "then it has to go".Sibal told the court that, as far as Mishra was concerned, he would like to defend her appointment as she is an "extraordinary officer", but the state would revisit the rules. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the Union had repeatedly told the Jharkhand government that its rules were in the teeth of the Prakash Singh judgement and could not be sustained.Mehta said that if any other state had framed such rules, irrespective of the party in power, they too must go. At the outset, Sibal objected to the Centre's submissions and asked why the Union had challenged only the Jharkhand rules when other states had similar provisions. He said some other states had worse rules and pointed to West Bengal, where, he said, an officer was appointed DGP with only six months left before superannuation and was later given an extension by the Centre.Mehta rejected Sibal's allegation and said the Union did not pick and choose states, and if there were such laws elsewhere, they too should go.According to the Centre's contempt plea, the Jharkhand government violated the Supreme Court's directions in the Prakash Singh case on the appointment of the DGP. It alleged that Mishra was appointed DGP on December 30, 2025, a day before her retirement, despite the direction that an officer must have at least six months of residual service to be considered for the post of state police chief.The Centre's plea, filed on July 16, asked the top court to declare illegal the appointments of DGP made in Jharkhand under the 2025 regulation. It said that on December 29, 2025, the state amended the regulation, and on December 30 appointed Mishra as DGP despite her scheduled retirement the next day. According to the Centre, the appointment effectively enabled an officer due to retire immediately thereafter to receive a two-year tenure, contrary to the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court.The plea also referred to the earlier appointment of Anurag Kumar Gupta as DGP on February 2, 2025. It said Gupta had only about three months of service left at the time of his appointment, though he was given a two-year tenure. By appointing Mishra as DGP 24 hours before her retirement, the state effectively granted her a two-year extension, the Centre said.The court was told that when the regulation was notified on January 8, 2025, it provided for a nomination committee for selecting the DGP, required at least six months of residual service for eligibility, and provided for a panel of three to five officers. The 2006 Supreme Court judgement in the Prakash Singh case, along with later directions, said the DGP of a state should be selected by the state government from among the three senior-most officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC on the basis of length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force. It also said that once selected, the officer should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation.In sum, the Supreme Court has indicated that Jharkhand's rules on appointing the DGP appear to run counter to the Prakash Singh verdict, has asked Tadasha Mishra to respond, and has left the state free to revisit the rules while the challenge to the regulation and appointments made under it is heard further.- Ends