Today, On 5th February, The Supreme Court criticised States for appointing acting police chiefs instead of sending timely DGP recommendations to the UPSC. It said delays harmed senior officers’ careers and asked the UPSC to approach the Court when States stall appointments.
The Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the practice of State governments appointing ‘acting’ police chiefs instead of forwarding recommendations to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the permanent appointment of a Director General of Police (DGP).
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that this practice undermines the consideration of qualified and senior police officers for the DGP position.
The Court observed that State governments are not adhering to the Prakash Singh guidelines by failing to submit names promptly for DGP selection and instead choosing to appoint acting DGPs.
ALSO READ: DGP Appointment Row: UPSC Tells West Bengal to Approach Supreme Court
To address this issue, the Court granted the UPSC the authority to contact State governments for timely proposals regarding DGP appointments. The Court specified that the UPSC could seek its intervention if any State fails to comply.
The Court ordered,
“We authorise the UPSC to write to the States to send timely proposals for recommendations of respective DGPs whenever such occasions arise. When such proposals are not sent, we direct the UPSC to move an application in the Prakash Singh case. It goes without saying that necessary consequences including accountability of the concerned States will be taken up,”
According to the Supreme Court’s guidelines, a DGP, or head of the police force in a State, is to be appointed by the State government from a panel of three officers shortlisted by the UPSC.
The Court delivered these directives while reviewing an appeal contesting the Telangana High Court’s order that instructed the UPSC to process the names recommended by the State government.
The UPSC had raised objections to this directive, highlighting that the State government had caused significant delays in the DGP selection process. The previous DGP, Anurag Sharma, retired in 2017, and the State did not forward any recommendations to the UPSC after that point.
Eventually, the State submitted a recommendation in April 2025, but the UPSC did not act on it due to the considerable delay that had already occurred since 2017.
The UPSC deemed this a serious oversight and required the State government to first request clarification or an order from the Supreme Court regarding the Prakash Singh case. It also indicated that the issue was not unique to Telangana and was part of a broader pattern of delay among various States.
The Court concurred with the UPSC’s concerns, remarking that such delays have adversely impacted the career trajectories of many senior police officers who have since retired and have been overlooked.
However, the Court also suggested that the UPSC’s objections might not contribute positively to the resolution and could instead benefit the non-compliant States.
Consequently, the Court instructed the UPSC to proceed with the DGP selection process for Telangana.
The Court ordered,
“We hold without hesitation that the State should make recommendations for the DGP at the earliest. It goes without saying that the zones of consideration will be on eligibility of officers who fall under such zone and will be on the basis of inter se merit. Commission is granted 4 weeks more time to do the needful,”