Supreme Court directs UPSC and Tamil Nadu government to consider names and fast-track the appointment of a regular DGP, ensuring compliance with legal guidelines and expeditious selection process.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
TAMIL NADU: The Tamil Nadu government informed the Supreme Court on Monday that it has already forwarded the names shortlisted for appointment as the regular Director General of Police (DGP)/Head of Police Force to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for consideration.
This comes in response to a petition seeking contempt action against the state for appointing G. Venkatraman IPS as the acting DGP of Tamil Nadu on August 31, 2025, following the retirement of Shankar Jiwal IPS.
Supreme Court Directs Expedited Process
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai directed both the UPSC and the Tamil Nadu government to consider the names and finalize the appointment of a regular DGP expeditiously.
Senior advocates representing the petitioner, Henri Tiphagne, urged the Court to put the UPSC and the state on a strict timeline, requesting that the appointment process be completed within a month. However, the Court did not accept this specific request.
Legal Challenge
The petition argued that Mr. Venkatraman’s ad hoc appointment violated the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in the Prakash Singh case, which had laid down strict guidelines for DGP appointments, including:
- States must send proposals to UPSC at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP.
- No state should appoint any officer as acting DGP in contravention of the court’s directions.
According to the petition, Tamil Nadu did not follow the three-month proposal timeline, and the appointment of Mr. Venkatraman as acting DGP directly contradicted the Supreme Court’s instructions.
Also Read: DGP Appointment Process || ‘Adhering to 2006 Apex Court Ruling’: Tripura Govt. To SC
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state, emphasized that the UPSC is a constitutional body and is fully aware of its responsibilities. The Court acknowledged this but maintained that the process should move forward without unnecessary delay.
