Centre Challenges Jharkhand DGP Regulation 2025: Cites Prakash Singh Non-Compliance

• The Central government has approached the Supreme Court to challenge Jharkhand's 2025 regulation for appointing its Director General of Police (DGP).
• The Centre alleges Jharkhand's regulation acts in "complete defiance" of Supreme Court directives from the *Prakash Singh v. Union of India* case.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented the matter before a Supreme Court bench, seeking compliance and a declaration that appointments under the regulation are illegal.
• The Union government's plea highlights Jharkhand's failure to seek the Supreme Court's leave before notifying the regulation, despite prior court orders.
• This case emphasizes the ongoing judicial oversight of state police appointments and the necessity for states to adhere to Supreme Court guidelines.

The Union government's application specifically targets the "Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025," which the state formally notified on January 8, 2025.

The Union government has initiated a legal challenge in the Supreme Court, contesting the validity of a new regulation governing the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Jharkhand. The Centre's application, filed on Wednesday, specifically targets the "Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of the Police Force) Regulation, 2025," which the state formally notified on January 8, 2025.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented the matter before a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana. The central government asserts that Jharkhand's actions in framing this 2025 regulation represent a "complete defiance" of established Supreme Court directives concerning DGP selection processes. The Union's plea seeks a judicial mandate compelling Jharkhand to adhere to these directives and, crucially, requests a declaration that any appointments made under the impugned 2025 regulation are illegal.

At the heart of the Centre's challenge lies the landmark judgment in *Prakash Singh v. Union of India*, a pivotal case that laid down comprehensive guidelines for police reforms, including the process for appointing state police chiefs. The Union government's application specifically alleges that the Jharkhand regulation was formulated in direct contravention of several Supreme Court orders issued within the framework of this case. These include significant directives from September 22, 2006, July 3, 2018, January 16, 2019, and March 13, 2019.

A key point of contention is the state's failure to seek the Supreme Court's explicit permission before notifying the new regulation. The apex court had previously issued clear instructions that any state or central legislation or rule found to be inconsistent with its established directions would be deemed invalid. Jharkhand's decision to proceed without obtaining such leave is a central component of the Union government's argument regarding the regulation's illegality.

This legal confrontation underscores the ongoing judicial scrutiny of state-level police appointments and the imperative for states to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court's directives. The *Prakash Singh* judgment aimed to depoliticize police forces and ensure transparent, merit-based selection processes for top leadership positions. The Centre's challenge against Jharkhand highlights a perceived deviation from these principles, potentially setting a precedent for how other states approach their DGP selection mechanisms.

A ruling in favor of the Union government could have significant ramifications, not only for Jharkhand but for other states that might consider similar regulations without prior Supreme Court approval. It reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of institutional reforms and ensuring that executive actions align with constitutional mandates and judicial pronouncements, particularly in sensitive areas like law enforcement leadership.

This case highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny of state-level police appointments and the imperative for states to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court's directives in *Prakash Singh v. Union of India*. Lawyers advising state governments or police departments must monitor this challenge closely, as a ruling against Jharkhand could invalidate appointments made under the 2025 Regulation and set a precedent for other states regarding DGP selection processes.

Source: Original reporting via The Economic Times