Archive · 7 Nov 2025
Supreme Court Seeks Tamil Nadu's Response on Acting DGP Appointment
Imagine the top court, like a principal, told a school principal in Tamil Nadu to hire a permanent head of the police, called a DGP, from a list of good candidates.
The school principal was supposed to do this a while ago.
But, instead of hiring a permanent person, the school principal keeps hiring someone temporarily, called an acting DGP.
The person who asked the principal to follow the rules is now telling the top court that the school principal is not listening and is acting like they are in contempt of the court's orders.
They say the temporary DGP might be chosen for political reasons, not based on who is best for the job.
The top court is now asking the school principal in Tamil Nadu to explain why they haven't hired a permanent DGP yet.
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu government seeking its response on a contempt plea.
The plea alleges that the state has willfully committed contempt by appointing an acting DGP and withholding the appointment of a regular DGP.
The petitioner cites previous Supreme Court orders, including those from the Prakash Singh case, which reportedly deem the concept of an acting DGP as legally foreign.
The Supreme Court had previously directed the state on September 8 to appoint a regular DGP from recommendations made by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
The contempt plea further alleges that the acting DGP was appointed to suit political convenience for upcoming state assembly elections in May 2026.
- Who
- The Supreme Court (bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran) and the Tamil Nadu government.
- What
- The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Tamil Nadu government on a contempt plea alleging non-compliance with its orders regarding the appointment of a regular Director General of Police (DGP) and the continued use of an acting DGP.
- When
- Friday (notice issued), with the reply sought in three weeks. The vacancy for DGP occurred on August 31, and the previous order to appoint a regular DGP was on September 8.
- Where
- New Delhi (Supreme Court of India) concerning Tamil Nadu.
- Why
- The petitioner alleges willful contempt of court by the Tamil Nadu government for appointing an acting DGP and not appointing a regular one from the UPSC panel, in violation of Supreme Court directives from the Prakash Singh case.
Petitioner's Stance
Tamil Nadu Government's Action
Appointment of Acting DGP
Petitioner's Stance
The petitioner argues that appointing an acting DGP and withholding the appointment of a regular DGP from the UPSC-recommended panel is a willful act of contempt, violating previous Supreme Court orders in the Prakash Singh case. The petitioner claims the acting DGP was chosen to suit political convenience and interests for upcoming elections.
Tamil Nadu Government's Action
The Tamil Nadu government has appointed an acting DGP despite the Supreme Court's earlier order to appoint a regular DGP from the UPSC recommendations. The specific reason for not appointing a regular DGP has not yet been detailed by the government.
Adherence to Supreme Court Orders
Petitioner's Stance
The petitioner asserts that the state's actions are in direct violation of clear directions from the Supreme Court regarding DGP appointments, as established in the Prakash Singh case, and that the concept of an acting DGP is legally alien.
Tamil Nadu Government's Action
The government's continued use of an acting DGP, despite the court's order from September 8, is seen by the petitioner as a failure to comply with judicial directives.
Purpose of Prakash Singh Case Directives
Petitioner's Stance
The petitioner contends that the state's actions undermine the very purpose of the Prakash Singh case directions, which aimed to insulate the police force from political pressure and ensure merit-based, stable appointments.
Tamil Nadu Government's Action
The government has not yet publicly stated its justification for the appointment of an acting DGP in light of the Prakash Singh case directives.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- State
- Tamil Nadu
- Issue
- Appointment of an acting Director General of Police (DGP)
- Contempt Plea Filed By
- Kishore Krishnaswamy
- Legal Basis for Challenge
- Supreme Court orders in the Prakash Singh case (September 22, 2006, and July 3, 2018)
- Previous Supreme Court Order
- September 8, directing the appointment of a regular DGP from UPSC recommendations.
- Previous DGP Vacancy Date
- August 31
- Appointed Acting DGP
- G Venkataraman (IPS officer)
Sources
Supreme Court irked over Centre’s request to defer hearing on pleas against tribunal reforms law
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021: CJI Gavai expresses displeasure over AG’s adjournment request, says avoiding his Bench unfair to the Court
Supreme Court Asks Calcutta High Court Not To Proceed In OBC List Matter
SC Irked over Delay in Tribunal Reforms Hearing, Rebukes Centre
Not fair to the court: CJI Gavai on AG’s request for adjournment
CJI Gavai's ‘avoid’ jab at attorney-general over adjournment plea in tribunal reforms case
"Do You Want To Resolve Tribunal Reforms Case After We Retire?" Court To Centre
