The Centre has moved the Supreme Court challenging Jharkhand’s rules governing the appointment of the state Director General of Police and sought directions to declare appointments made under the 2025 regulations illegal, alleging that the state government acted in violation of the apex court’s directions in the landmark Prakash Singh police reforms case.
The Centre has particularly questioned the appointment of senior IPS officer Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP on December 30, 2025, a day before she was due to retire. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday agreed to list the Centre’s application for hearing on Thursday after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a Bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
Centre challenges rules
The dispute centres on the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025, which the state notified on January 8 last year.
The Centre has alleged that Jharkhand framed the regulations without seeking the Supreme Court’s permission despite earlier directions governing the process for appointing state police chiefs. It has asked the court to direct the state to comply with the framework laid down in the Prakash Singh case and declare appointments made under the Jharkhand regulations illegal.
The Union government’s position is that Supreme Court directions on DGP appointments must be implemented in their entirety and states cannot selectively adopt provisions that suit their own appointment mechanism.
Six-month rule at centre
A key issue is the requirement concerning the residual service of officers considered for appointment as DGP.
Under the Supreme Court’s directions, the UPSC is required to consider officers who have at least six months of service remaining before retirement while preparing a panel for appointment as DGP. This was clarified by the apex court in March 2019 after concerns arose over states appointing officers close to retirement and effectively granting them lengthy extensions through the mandatory tenure attached to the DGP's office.
The Centre has alleged that Jharkhand amended its regulations on December 29, 2025, in a manner that removed the six-month residual-service obstacle. Mishra was appointed DGP the following day and was scheduled to superannuate on December 31.
The Union government has argued that appointing an officer immediately before retirement and then relying on the two-year tenure prescribed for a DGP defeats the purpose of the Supreme Court’s directions.
Rules amended before appointment
According to the Centre’s application, the timing of the amendment to the Jharkhand regulations is particularly significant.
The state issued a resolution on December 29 changing the eligibility framework, followed by Mishra’s appointment on December 30. The Centre contends that the amendment facilitated her appointment despite her having only one day of residual service before superannuation.
The Union government has maintained that the Supreme Court had specifically sought to prevent the practice of appointing officers on the eve of retirement simply to provide them an extended tenure.
An amicus curiae assisting the Supreme Court in the DGP appointments matter has separately submitted that Mishra’s appointment a day before her retirement was contrary to the principles laid down in the Prakash Singh judgments.
UPSC role questioned
The Centre has also raised objections over Jharkhand creating its own mechanism for selecting the police chief instead of following the process prescribed through the Supreme Court’s directions.
The Prakash Singh framework requires states to send proposals to the UPSC before a vacancy arises. The UPSC prepares a panel of eligible senior officers on the basis of factors including length of service, record and experience, following which the state selects its DGP from the panel.
The Supreme Court had in July 2018 directed states to send their proposals to the UPSC at least three months before the incumbent DGP’s retirement. It had also rejected the concept of appointing acting DGPs and sought to prevent last-minute appointments designed to secure extended tenure.
Centre had written to state
The Ministry of Home Affairs had raised objections to Jharkhand’s appointment mechanism before approaching the Supreme Court.
According to the Centre’s application, the ministry wrote to the Jharkhand government on January 6, 2026, asking it to cancel the 2025 regulations as well as Mishra’s appointment and begin a fresh selection process consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions.
The Centre has alleged that the state did not act on those objections.
Its latest application argues that Jharkhand cannot rely on the Prakash Singh judgment to grant a DGP a two-year tenure while simultaneously departing from the selection safeguards prescribed under the same set of directions.
Earlier appointment under scanner
The controversy predates Mishra’s appointment. Jharkhand had appointed Anurag Gupta as DGP on February 2, 2025, for a two-year tenure when he had only around three months of service remaining before his scheduled superannuation.
The Union Home Ministry subsequently raised objections to Gupta’s continuation and communicated with the Jharkhand government on several occasions. Gupta later sought voluntary retirement, following which Mishra was appointed.
A challenge to Jharkhand’s 2025 regulations and Gupta’s appointment had also reached the Jharkhand High Court. The Supreme Court subsequently transferred the matter to itself, bringing the dispute within the broader proceedings concerning implementation of the Prakash Singh directions.
SC had sought explanation
The Supreme Court has been examining compliance by states with its directions governing appointments to the top police post.
In March this year, the court directed Jharkhand to explain why a proposal for appointing the DGP in accordance with the Prakash Singh framework had not been forwarded to the UPSC. In subsequent proceedings, the issue of the state’s police chief and compliance with the court-mandated appointment mechanism remained under scrutiny.
The Centre has now sought judicial intervention against both the state’s regulatory framework and appointments made under it. The legality of the regulations and Mishra’s continuation as DGP will ultimately depend on the Supreme Court’s determination; the Centre’s assertions at this stage remain submissions before the court.