Why the Centre Moved the Supreme Court Over Jharkhand’s Police Chief
The Central government has taken a major legal step by approaching the Supreme Court. The challenge is directed against the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Jharkhand. According to the report, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana.
The Union government alleges that the State of Jharkhand acted in complete defiance of established judicial guidelines. The core dispute revolves around how the state framed its regulations for choosing its top police officer. This case brings crucial questions about executive overreach and adherence to apex court mandates back into the spotlight.
The Heart of the Dispute: The 2025 Regulations
The controversy stems from the “Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025”. The State notified these rules on January 8, 2025. The Centre argues that Jharkhand did this without seeking the Supreme Court’s prior permission.
As per the report, the Supreme Court had previously directed that any state or central rule contrary to its established directions must remain in abeyance. States were explicitly instructed to approach the apex court if they wanted any modifications. The Union government has now asked the Supreme Court to declare appointments made under this 2025 state regulation entirely illegal.
Violating the Landmark Prakash Singh Guidelines
The legal battle is deeply rooted in a historic Supreme Court ruling. In the landmark case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, the apex court laid down strict rules to insulate police forces from political interference. Subsequent orders in 2018 and 2019 directed states to send proposals to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months before an incumbent DGP retires. The UPSC then prepares a panel, and the state must select a DGP from that approved list.
The Centre claims that Jharkhand selectively picked parts of the Prakash Singh framework to give its DGPs a two-year tenure while completely ignoring the mandatory UPSC selection procedure. The Union’s plea argues that this cherry-picking amounts to a fundamental misapplication of the law, noting that judicial directions must be implemented in full, not selectively.
Controversial Appointments and Rapid Retirements
The Central government’s application specifically targets two high-profile appointments made by the state under disputed circumstances:
- Anurag Gupta: Appointed as DGP on February 2, 2025, for a two-year tenure, despite having only about three months of service left. His official date of superannuation was April 30, 2025. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the cadre-controlling authority for Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, repeatedly opposed this appointment before Gupta eventually sought voluntary retirement in November 2025.
- Tadasha Mishra: Appointed DGP on December 30, 2025, just a day before her scheduled retirement on December 31, 2025. To facilitate this, the state amended its 2025 regulation on December 29 to remove the requirement of having at least six months of residual service remaining. Amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran previously pointed out to the Court that this appointment ran contrary to the Prakash Singh principles.
Following these events, the MHA directed Jharkhand in January 2026 to cancel both the 2025 Regulation and Mishra’s appointment, instructing the state to start a fresh process in line with Supreme Court directives.
What Happens Next
With the matter now active before the Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant, the court will examine whether Jharkhand’s actions violated constitutional protocols. The bench had earlier noted that an acting DGP was functioning in the state and sought a formal compliance affidavit. As the proceedings move forward, the apex court’s decision will set a strict precedent on whether states can bypass central oversight and judicial mandates in matters of high-ranking police appointments.
Why This Matters For You
For everyday citizens and aspiring civil servants, the integrity of police leadership is vital for maintaining the rule of law. When top-level police appointments bypass independent selection boards like the UPSC, it weakens institutional checks and balances. This high-profile legal battle highlights the ongoing struggle to keep law enforcement agencies free from political interference.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
