Photo Source: ANI
Supreme Court slams delay in DGP appointments, empowers UPSC to seek contempt action
Babushahi Bureau
New Delhi, February 6, 2026:The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the growing practice of states delaying the appointment of regular Directors General of Police (DGPs) and instead continuing with ad-hoc or acting arrangements, calling it contrary to its long-standing directions on police reforms.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that such delays undermine institutional integrity and ruled that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is now authorised to issue reminders to state governments and even initiate contempt proceedings in case of non-compliance.
The court was hearing a plea filed by the UPSC challenging a January 9, 2025 order of the Telangana High Court, which had directed completion of the DGP selection process within four weeks.
During the proceedings, it was pointed out that Telangana had forwarded a panel of eligible IPS officers to the UPSC on January 1, but the Commission returned the proposal citing non-adherence to the 2018 Supreme Court guidelines laid down in the landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India case. The UPSC noted that the state had failed to make timely recommendations after the previous DGP retired in 2017.
In the Prakash Singh judgment delivered in September 2006, the apex court had mandated that a state DGP must be selected from among the three senior-most empanelled IPS officers by the UPSC, based on service record, experience, and integrity. It also fixed a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the officer’s date of superannuation, except in cases involving disciplinary action, conviction, corruption, or incapacity.
The court further refined these directions in July 2018, instructing states to send proposals to the UPSC at least three months before the retirement of the serving DGP, enabling a smooth transition and preventing leadership gaps.
Representing the UPSC, senior advocate Naresh Kaushik highlighted that several states were deliberately delaying proposals and continuing with interim DGPs for administrative convenience. Echoing these concerns, the bench remarked that states often prefer ad-hoc arrangements over appointing full-term police chiefs.
“States do not want a regular DGP; they prefer acting or ad-hoc appointments that suit them,” the Chief Justice observed during the hearing.
In its order, the Supreme Court formally authorised the UPSC to seek explanations from states for delays and to approach the court in the Prakash Singh case whenever proposals are not submitted on time. It also made clear that accountability would be fixed on officials responsible for such lapses.