Supreme Court Critiques States for Ignoring DGP Appointment Guidelines

The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns regarding the appointment process for directors general of police (DGPs), criticizing states for not following the 2006 Prakash Singh ruling. During a recent hearing, the court questioned the Odisha government's exclusion of a senior IPS officer from the candidate list amid a CBI investigation. The court's remarks highlight the need for adherence to judicial orders in the selection process, as it aims to ensure transparency and integrity in law enforcement leadership. This ongoing legal scrutiny underscores the importance of compliance with established guidelines in police appointments.

By Narendra Chaudhary Sep 29, 2026, 22:26 IST

Supreme Court's Strong Remarks on DGP Selection Process

New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns on Tuesday regarding the reluctance of many states to adhere to the 2006 Prakash Singh ruling, which mandates a transparent process for appointing directors general of police (DGPs). This statement was made by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while they deliberated on petitions contesting the Odisha government's method of selecting candidates for the DGP position.

During the proceedings on September 24, the bench inquired whether the Odisha government had categorized a senior IPS officer, whose name was omitted from the DGP candidate list, as an accused following the CBI's indication that he might need questioning in a recruitment exam scandal. The Chief Justice remarked that the state appeared to be attempting to manipulate the appointment process to favor a DGP of their choosing, disregarding the Supreme Court's directives.

The Supreme Court also criticized the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for its lackadaisical attitude in shortlisting three senior IPS officers from the candidates proposed by the states for the DGP role. The Chief Justice highlighted the UPSC's casual approach, stating, "This is all just an eyewash," and emphasized that the appointment of DGPs must comply with the court's judicial orders.

The bench reviewed arguments related to a public interest litigation and other petitions alleging that the Odisha government was improperly considering a junior officer for the DGP position, contrary to the Supreme Court's 2006 ruling. The exclusion of senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath from the candidate list was also a focal point of the discussion, particularly after the CBI indicated he might be involved in an investigation concerning the Odisha Police recruitment exam. Initially, the Odisha government had submitted a list of 11 senior IPS officers to the UPSC for consideration, but Nath's name was later withdrawn following the CBI's communication.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Odisha, informed the bench that the CBI had notified the state on August 4 that Nath, who chaired the Odisha Police Recruitment Board during the exam, "may be required to be examined" after obtaining necessary permissions. Consequently, the state withheld Nath's integrity certificate and submitted a revised list with integrity certificates for 10 other officers. However, Justice Bagchi questioned whether the CBI's information indicated that Nath had been formally named as an accused.