The Union Public Service Commission returned West Bengal’s proposal for appointing a Director General of Police, intensifying friction between the state government and the Centre. Citing delays, the UPSC urged the Trinamool led administration to approach the Supreme Court urgently.
NEW DELHI: The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has sent back a proposal from the West Bengal government concerning the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP), raising tensions between the state administration and the central government.
The UPSC cited delays by the Trinamool Congress led government and has advised it to consult the Supreme Court regarding the matter.
This situation is particularly urgent as the current DGP, Rajeev Kumar, is poised to retire on January 31, with Assembly elections anticipated around April.
The Supreme Court in it’s landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India case (2006) ruling and subsequent clarifications in 2018, directed that states are required to submit a list of eligible IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months before the sitting DGP retires.
However, West Bengal has consistently opposed this framework, asserting that law and order falls within the State List under the Constitution, and therefore the authority to appoint the DGP should rest exclusively with the state government.
They also argue that the UPSC neither has jurisdiction nor expertise over state police leadership appointments, and that the Supreme Court’s mandate encroaches upon state autonomy.
Again in 2021, The Supreme Court of India in Amicus Curiae v. Union of India, dealt with West Bengal’s request to appoint a Director General of Police without UPSC participation. The Court refused to entertain the plea, terming it an “abuse of process of law,” and reiterated that states are bound to adhere to the Prakash Singh guidelines.
It emphasized that the appointment of a DGP must follow the established procedure, which requires sending names of eligible officers to the UPSC and selecting from the panel prepared by the Commission, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability in police leadership appointments.
In a letter dated December 31, addressed to then Home Secretary Nandini Chakraborty, the UPSC referenced the significant Prakash Singh vs Union of India case. It highlighted a Supreme Court ruling from July 3, 2018, which mandates that states must submit DGP appointment proposals to the UPSC at least three months prior to the incumbent’s retirement.
The DGP vacancy in Bengal arose in December 2023 as DGP Rajeev Kumar was reappointed in 2024, but the state only forwarded its proposal in July 2025, which was nearly 1.5 years late.
An official stated,
“Despite the delay, UPSC held an Empanelment Committee Meeting on 30 October 2025. Divergent views emerged within the committee on the date of vacancy due to the delayed submission,”
The UPSC has since sought a legal perspective from the Attorney General of India to resolve the impasse.
The Attorney General remarked,
“I find no provision empowering the UPSC to condone such inordinate delay and proceed as though no irregularity had occurred, ultimately recommending a panel of DGPs…. Accepting the proposal of the state of West Bengal would create serious anomalies, as delayed reporting of vacancies may deprive legitimate aspirants of consideration for empanelment,”
He also added that,
“The state government should have first come to the Supreme Court in case of any difficulty. The more appropriate course, therefore, would be to require the State Government to seek leave or clarification from the Supreme Court,”