Taking a firm stance on prolonged inaction by several states in appointing regular police chiefs, the Supreme Court on Thursday authorised the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to independently bring such delays to the Court’s notice, in order to enforce compliance with its earlier police reform guidelines laid down in the Prakash Singh case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition by the UPSC challenging a Telangana High Court direction dated January 9, which had asked the Commission to expedite the process of appointing a Director General of Police (DGP) for the state.
The apex court granted the UPSC four weeks to convene an empanelment meeting and recommend names for the DGP post in Telangana—where no regular DGP has been appointed since 2017. It also endorsed the UPSC’s concerns about the “inordinate delay” by several states in sending timely proposals for such appointments, as mandated under Supreme Court directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.
In the landmark Prakash Singh ruling, the Supreme Court had laid down binding guidelines for police reforms, including the requirement that states must select DGPs from among the three senior-most Indian Police Service (IPS) officers empanelled by the UPSC. These officers are to be given a minimum fixed tenure of two years.
However, the UPSC submitted that multiple states have disregarded these directions and failed to send proposals in a timely manner, opting instead for ad-hoc appointments of acting DGPs. This, it said, deprives deserving senior officers of a fair chance for consideration and undermines the principle of transparency and seniority in top police appointments.
The Court took serious note of this concern and observed:
“We hereby authorise the UPSC to firstly write to the state governments to send timely proposals for appointment of DGPs. In the event of non-compliance, the UPSC is at liberty to move an application before this Court in the Prakash Singh case.”
Highlighting the lapse by Telangana, the UPSC informed the bench that the last regular DGP of the state was appointed in November 2015 and retired in November 2017. No full-time DGP has been appointed since then.
The bench noted this as a “serious omission” and said that the delay had led to the retirement or supersession of several senior and eligible IPS officers due to the non-convening of the empanelment committee.
“We hold without any hesitation that the UPSC should convene the empanelment committee meeting at the earliest and make recommendation for appointment of DGP for the state of Telangana,” the Court said, giving the Commission four weeks to act.
The top court was hearing the UPSC’s challenge to the Telangana High Court’s January 9 order, which had directed the Commission to complete the DGP selection process preferably within four weeks, continuing the process already initiated by the state.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for UPSC argued that the state government had failed to act within the timeline stipulated under Prakash Singh, and the delay was undermining the purpose of the guidelines.
With this latest order, the Supreme Court has not only reinforced the primacy of its police reform directions but has also empowered the UPSC to act as a watchdog for compliance—signaling a firm push towards depoliticised and merit-based police leadership across the country.
