Judgment Intelligence
OtherPrakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996 (IA No. 201897 of 2026), with T.C.(C) No. 141 of 2025
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 8 October 2026
- Bench
- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Police Act, 1861 — Sections 2, 46(2) and 46(3); Constitution of India — Article 32
Final Outcome
Notice to be served on the serving DGP; Jharkhand at liberty to revisit the rule or file a counter-affidavit; matters listed on 03.11.2026 (paras 3-7).
Key holdings
- Jharkhand's 2025 DGP regulations are prima facie contrary to Prakash Singh (paras 1-2).
- Annulment of the rule would require the serving DGP's appointment to be set aside, so she is to be heard (paras 2-3).
- Jharkhand may revisit the rule or file a counter-affidavit (para 3).
- The amicus will also examine other States' rules and appointments of police chiefs, assisted by the UPSC (paras 4-5).
Brief Facts
In the Prakash Singh writ petition, an application (IA No. 201897/2026) seeking clarification and directions was listed with a transferred case. Using its powers under Section 46(2) and (3) read with Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, Jharkhand had notified the Selection and Appointment of the Director General and Inspector General of Police (Head of the Police Force) Regulations, 2025. Under the amended regulations, an officer can be considered for appointment as DGP even if less than six months of service remain before superannuation, by being given credit for retrospective service (para 1).
Court's Findings
The Court found the provision prima facie contrary to the law laid down in Prakash Singh, and noted that if the rule were annulled, the consequential appointment of the State's DGP would also have to be set aside (para 2). It therefore gave her an opportunity to be heard and directed Jharkhand to serve notice on her; meanwhile the State may revisit the 'purportedly offending' rule or file a counter-affidavit (para 3). The amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, was asked to assist on the validity of Jharkhand's rules on appointing the DGP and to examine similar statutes, rules and consequential appointments in other States (para 4). The Union Public Service Commission was directed to assist him, and a note filed by the Union of India was taken on record (paras 5-6).
Legal Principle
A State rule letting an officer with less than six months' residual service be appointed DGP by crediting retrospective service is, prima facie, contrary to Prakash Singh; before ruling on it, the officer whose appointment depends on the rule is to be heard (paras 1-3).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996
The law laid down by the Supreme Court on appointment of a State's Director General of Police; Jharkhand's 2025 regulations crediting retrospective service prima facie run against it.
