23 hrs ago
Sibal Questions Centre’s Challenge to Jharkhand DGP Appointment Rules
The Supreme Court is considering whether Jharkhand followed the rules for choosing its police chief.
The state made its own rules and appointed Tadasha Mishra as DGP shortly before she was due to retire.
The national government says the state’s rules do not follow earlier Supreme Court directions.
Kapil Sibal, speaking for Jharkhand, says the national government is unfairly challenging only his state when other states have similar rules.
The government says it would challenge any state’s rules that are just as problematic.
The judges said they must make sure the court’s directions are followed.
Sibal said Jharkhand could take another look at its rules.
The court also said Mishra should have a chance to be heard before it makes a final decision.
Kapil Sibal argued the Centre had singled out Jharkhand while similar laws in other states remained unchallenged.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Centre would challenge any state rules that conflict with Supreme Court directions.
The dispute concerns Jharkhand’s 2025 rules, which use a state committee and remove the six-month residual-service requirement for DGP appointments.
The Centre says it repeatedly raised objections with Jharkhand and that the rules conflict with the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh directions.
The Supreme Court said it must prevent those directions from being diluted, issued notice to Tadasha Mishra, and heard Sibal say the state could revisit its rules.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Centre represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Jharkhand represented by Kapil Sibal, and DGP Tadasha Mishra.
- What
- A hearing on the Centre’s challenge to Jharkhand’s amended DGP appointment rules and Mishra’s appointment.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India, in New Delhi.
- When
- The hearing date is not stated; the rules are described as having been notified in 2025.
- Why
- The Centre says Jharkhand’s rules conflict with Supreme Court directions on selecting DGPs; Sibal argues the Centre is applying its challenge selectively.
Jharkhand and Sibal’s argument
Centre and Mehta’s argument
Whether the Centre is targeting Jharkhand
Jharkhand and Sibal’s argument
Sibal said similar or worse laws in other states had not been challenged, and questioned why the Centre chose Jharkhand.
Centre and Mehta’s argument
Mehta denied choosing states and said the Centre would challenge any state rules that were equally or more inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directions.
Validity of Jharkhand’s DGP rules
Jharkhand and Sibal’s argument
Sibal said he was open to revisiting the rules and had advised the state to do so.
Centre and Mehta’s argument
The Centre said the rules conflict with the Prakash Singh directions, including the requirement for six months of residual service, and that the state should follow the directions in full.
Key facts
- State
- Jharkhand
- Officer
- Tadasha Mishra
- Centre’s representative
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
- State’s counsel
- Senior advocate Kapil Sibal
- Relevant Supreme Court directions
- The Prakash Singh orders, issued in 2006, 2018 and 2019
- Key disputed requirement
- At least six months of residual service for a DGP appointment
- Court’s action
- Issued notice to Mishra and said she should be heard before a final decision
Quotes
Tushar Mehta
Solicitor General representing the Centre
“I can make a statement. If there are any other States, irrespective of the party in power, if they are as bad or worse, they must go. I can’t be choosy. I only wanted to convey that the Union of India does not choose states. This has come to our notice and I am challenging it. But if other laws are equally bad or worse, they also must go.”
theprint.in
“Why should the Solicitor General challenge it? Why should the Solicitor General be enthusiastic to challenge it? There is statute in Bihar, statutes in other parts which are worse and which are pending before this court. My learned friend has not filed an application in any of those. It’s only Jharkhand.”
theprint.in
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Questions Jharkhand Police Chief Appointment Rules
Jharkhand HC Maintains Recruitment Stay, Demands Government Reply
Supreme Court Stays Reinstatement in IAS Dog-Walk Row
Jharkhand High Court Seeks Government Response on JPSC Cancellations
Jabalpur High Court Upholds CAT Order on IPS Cadre Review
Supreme Court Stays Karnataka High Court’s KPSC SIT Probe
Supreme Court Seeks Regulated Delhi Metro Services Ahead of Protests
Supreme Court Bars Complete Delhi Metro Shutdown Ahead of Protest
Supreme Court Seeks Punjab Land for Highway Tree Replacement
