Six months of residual service is the line the Prakash Singh directions draw for a police chief’s appointment. The Supreme Court has said the Jharkhand DGP Appointment Rule, which allows an appointment despite less than six months of service left, prima facie falls on the wrong side of it.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Hearing an application by the Union of India against the State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court on Thursday took a prima facie view that a Jharkhand rule permitting appointment of the State’s Director General of Police despite less than six months of residual service runs contrary to its Prakash Singh directions [Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant heard the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Jharkhand. The Court’s observation is a prima facie view at the hearing stage. It is not a final finding on the validity of the rule or on any appointment made under it.
Six months or more
Under the Prakash Singh directions of 2006 and the later orders clarifying them, a State chooses its police chief from the three senior-most officers empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission, and only an officer with at least six months of service remaining is eligible. The requirement is meant to give the appointee a reasonably secure tenure and to prevent appointments of officers on the verge of retirement.
Where Jharkhand’s rule departs
The Union moved its application in the Prakash Singh matter a day earlier, alleging that the State’s 2025 regulations for selecting its police chief are in defiance of the Court’s directions. According to the application, the State amended the regulations on December 30, 2025, and the amendment dispensed with the requirement of residual service for appointing the head of police force. The Centre contends that the Prakash Singh judgments require an officer to have at least six months of service left at the time of appointment.
As relief, the Centre has sought a direction to Jharkhand to follow the Prakash Singh directions or, alternatively, a declaration that DGP appointments made under the 2025 regulations are illegal. These are the Union’s contentions. Mr. Sibal represents the State, and the Court has not yet decided the application finally.
A connected question
Connected petitions already before the Court raise the appointment of the incumbent DGP, Tadasha Mishra, on December 30, 2025, a day before her due retirement. Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran had earlier told the Court that such an appointment appeared inconsistent with the residual service requirement. These are contentions, and the Court has recorded no finding of contempt.
What the observation signals
The prima facie view gives early indication of how the Court reads its own Prakash Singh directions when a State frames its own rules for choosing the police chief. The Court has long insisted that those directions bind all States until legislation consistent with them is enacted, and the residual service condition is one of the safeguards meant to keep the process insulated from discretion.
The dispute is between the Union and a State, and the final answer will turn on the State’s response and the Court’s reading of the directions. Until then, the observation remains tentative, and neither the validity of the rule nor of any appointment has been conclusively decided.
Case Title: Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others (application by the Union of India against the State of Jharkhand)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India; Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the State of Jharkhand