Context
- The Supreme Court of India examined Jharkhand’s 2025 law governing the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP), following a challenge by the Union government over its alleged inconsistency with the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) judgment.
About the Prakash Singh Judgment, 2006
- The Supreme Court issued directions to reform the police system and insulate it from unwarranted political interference.
- Objective: To promote police autonomy, operational stability, accountability and professionalism.
- Key Directions on DGP Appointment
- Selection Process: The State government should select the DGP from a panel of suitable officers prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
- Eligibility: The panel should comprise the three senior-most suitable officers, assessed on the basis of seniority, service record and range of experience.
- Residual Service: Eligible officers should have at least six months of service remaining before normal retirement.
- Minimum Tenure: The DGP should have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of superannuation.
Jharkhand’s Counter: Double Standards
- Jharkhand said the Centre showed “special affection” for it, while States like Bihar have “worse” appointment laws.
- Sibal pointed to West Bengal, where the DGP was appointed by the Election Commission of India in March 2026, even though the officer was due to retire the following month.
- Seventh Schedule: Police and Public Order fall under List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
Constitutional and Governance Significance
- Police Reforms: Strengthens efforts to reduce political interference in policing.
- Rule of Law: Reinforces the binding nature of Supreme Court directions under Article 141 of the Constitution.
- Cooperative Federalism: Highlights tensions between Union oversight and State-level police administration.
- Institutional Accountability: Encourages transparent, merit-based appointments and uniform compliance with judicial directions.
Q. With reference to the Prakash Singh judgment (2006) and the appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs) in India, consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court directed State governments to select the DGP from a panel of suitable officers prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
2. The selected DGP should have a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of superannuation.
3. Police and Public Order fall under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
4. The directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh judgment are binding on State governments under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1, 2 and 4 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: (b) 1, 2 and 4 only
Explanation:
• Statement 1 is Correct: The judgment directed States to select the DGP from a panel of suitable officers prepared by the UPSC.
• Statement 2 is Correct: The DGP should have a minimum tenure of two years, subject to the applicable directions.
• Statement 3 is Incorrect: Police and Public Order fall under the State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule.
• Statement 4 is Correct: Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India.