The Supreme Court had, in an order in 2019, clarified that only senior police officers with a residual tenure of six months before normal retirement should be considered for the post of DGP. File
| Photo Credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 8, 2026) asked amicus curiae, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, to examine whether Rules and other delegated legislation made by States for appointment of DGPs violate the 2006 Prakash Singh judgment of the apex court.
The 2006 judgment referred to by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had laid down guidelines for a transparent appointment process and a minimum tenure of two years.
The apex court had, in a further order in 2019, clarified that only senior police officers with a residual tenure of six months before normal retirement should be considered for the post of DGP.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had complained in an application that the appointment of Jharkhand DGP, Tadasha Mishra, failed the Prakash Singh test.
The court issued notice to Ms. Mishra. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Jharkhand, however, questioned why the Centre was reserving its “affection” only for Jharkhand when other States like West Bengal and Bihar were violating the Supreme Court judgment.
The court scheduled the next hearing on November 3.
Published – October 08, 2026 03:23 pm IST
