The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Tamil Nadu government on a contempt plea alleging willful disobedience of its directions regarding the appointment of a regular Director General of Police (DGP) in the state.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued notice to the state government and directed it to file its reply within three weeks on the plea filed by Kishore Krishnaswamy.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that despite the apex court’s order dated September 8, which directed the Tamil Nadu government to “forthwith appoint a regular DGP” from the names recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the state continues to function under an acting DGP.
Bhushan pointed out that the state government had informed the court that a panel of names was submitted to the UPSC on August 29, but no appointment had been made even after more than two months. “The order was passed on September 8 and today we are on November 7, but still the state is carrying on with the acting DGP. There is no appointment of a regular DGP till date,” he told the bench.
The contempt plea claims that the Tamil Nadu government “wilfully committed an act of contempt” by appointing an in-charge DGP, thereby violating the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments in the Prakash Singh case (September 22, 2006 and July 3, 2018), which laid down clear directives for fixed tenures and merit-based appointments of DGPs.
It asserts that the “concept of an acting DGP is foreign and unknown to the law” and that the appointment of IPS officer G. Venkataraman as an ad-hoc DGP on August 31, 2025 directly contravenes the court’s binding directions.
The petitioner contends that the government was aware of the impending vacancy as the previous DGP’s tenure ended on August 31 but failed to initiate timely steps for appointing a regular successor. “Despite the lapse of nearly 57 days from the date of vacancy, the respondent/contemnor has failed to appoint a suitable candidate,” the plea says.
The plea further alleges that the acting DGP was “handpicked by the current political dispensation to suit their political convenience” ahead of the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections due in May 2026. It accuses the officer of functioning as a “mere echo chamber” of the ruling party rather than an independent head of the police force.
“This is a clear affront to the very purpose behind the directions passed in Prakash Singh, which sought to insulate the police force, particularly its administrative head, from extraneous political pressures and ensure merit-based, stable and independent appointments,” the plea adds.
The Supreme Court has now sought the Tamil Nadu government’s reply within three weeks and will take up the matter after receiving the state’s response.
In a related observation earlier this year, the top court had declined to entertain a similar contempt plea regarding the appointment of a DGP in Jharkhand, remarking that its contempt jurisdiction “cannot be invoked to settle political rivalries.”
