The Supreme Court has questioned a 2025 Jharkhand rule related to the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP). The Court has also asked an Amicus Curiae to examine similar rules in other States and check whether they follow the Court's directions on police reforms. Amicus Curiae (person or lawyer who is not a party to a legal case, but is appointed by or allowed by the court to offer impartial advice, information, or expertise).

Why in the News?

A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, heard the case related to the appointment of the Jharkhand DGP. The Court asked Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae, to examine the Jharkhand rules and similar rules in other States.

What is the Issue?

The case concerns the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025.

  • The rules allowed an officer with less than six months of residual service (remaining service before retirement) to be considered for appointment as DGP.
  • The Supreme Court prima facie (at first sight) observed that this provision appears to be against the directions given by the Court in the Prakash Singh case.

What Did the Supreme Court Say?

The Court observed that if the disputed rule is annulled, the appointment of Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP could also be affected. Therefore, the Court has allowed her to present her side. The Supreme Court of India will hear the matter again after one week. The Jharkhand government can:

  • Revisit the rule (review and change the rule), or
  • File a counter-affidavit (written response submitted to the Court) explaining its position.

Role of the Amicus Curiae

The Court has asked Raju Ramachandran to examine:

  • Whether Jharkhand had the legal authority to make these rules.
  • Whether the rules are in line with the Prakash Singh judgment.
  • Whether other States have similar rules that go against the Court's directions.

The UPSC will assist the Amicus Curiae in this examination.

What is the Prakash Singh Case?

The Prakash Singh case is a landmark Supreme Court case on police reforms. The Court issued several directions to improve police functioning and reduce political interference.

  • One important issue was the process for selecting the DGP and ensuring that an officer has a reasonable period of service after appointment.
  • The present case examines whether Jharkhand's 2025 rules follow these directions.

Arguments in the Court

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand, argued that other States also have similar rules. He questioned why the Union government had challenged the Jharkhand rules but not those of other States. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that if other States also have rules that are equally inconsistent with the Supreme Court's directions, those rules should also be examined.

  • The Supreme Court said its duty is to ensure that the Prakash Singh directions are not diluted (weakened or bypassed), regardless of which political party is in power in a State.

Background of the Case

Jharkhand notified its DGP appointment rules in January 2025. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed challenging some provisions of these rules. The petitioner argued that the rules were not in line with the Prakash Singh judgment. The case was later transferred from the Jharkhand High Court to the Supreme Court. The petitioner later alleged that Jharkhand appointed a new DGP one day before her retirement on December 31, 2025, effectively giving her an extension of service. The petitioner also alleged that:

  • The appointment was made without sending the names to the UPSC.
  • The State changed the rules before the appointment.
  • The change affected the calculation of the officer's residual service (remaining service before retirement).
  • The rules were changed one day before the appointment notification.

These issues are being examined by the Supreme Court.

Issue of Other States

The Court's decision to examine rules in other States gives the case wider importance. The Amicus Curiae will examine whether other States have also made rules that may be contrary to the Prakash Singh directions. This could help bring greater consistency in the implementation of police reforms across States.

Why is the Case Important?

The case is important for police reforms and Centre-State relations. It raises questions about:

  • Appointment of DGPs
  • Political interference in police administration
  • Role of the UPSC
  • State governments' power to make police-service rules
  • Implementation of Supreme Court directions
  • Stable tenure (period for which an officer holds a post) of senior police officers

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is examining whether Jharkhand's DGP appointment rules follow the Prakash Singh directions on police reforms. The issue also highlights the importance of Supreme Court Judge Strength in ensuring the effective functioning of the judiciary and timely consideration of significant legal and constitutional matters. The wider examination of similar rules in other States could help create a more consistent and transparent system for DGP appointments across India.