New Delhi, Sep 4 The JMM government's appointment of Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP on December 30, 2025, a day before her retirement, was in violation of the Supreme Court's direction that an officer must have at least six months' residual service left at the time of assuming the office, the top court has been told.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran, who is assisting a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in hearing pleas related to alleged violation of the apex court's directions by various states on the procedures to be adopted in DGP appointments, has filed the note in pursuance of an order.
"The appointment of the current DGP (HoPF) one day prior to her retirement is clearly in complete violation of the principles laid down in the Prakash Singh-I, II, and III judgments and orders," Ramchandran said in the note submitted before the bench, which also comprised Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
On August 18, the bench asked the amicus curiae to submit his note in response to a plea filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Babulal Marandi, who sought a declaration that the state government's amended rules pertaining to the DGP's appointment process were in violation of the top court's judgment.
Marandi was represented by advocates Abhisek Rai and Gyanant Singh.
Tadasha Mishra, a 1994 batch IPS officer of Jharkhand cadre, was appointed as the DGP of the state on December 30, 2025, a day prior to her superannuation, by the Hemant Soren government.
The amicus, in his note, said that while several provisions of the state's disputed rules do not violate the spirit of the Supreme Court's landmark Prakash Singh judgments, certain provisions require clarification and safeguards to prevent arbitrariness and political interference.
He scrutinised the "Selection and Appointment of DGP, Jharkhand Rules, 2025".
Under the landmark Prakash Singh judgments, an officer must have at least six months of residual service to be considered for the post of DGP to ensure stability and merit.
By appointing Mishra as DGP 24 hours before her retirement, the state effectively granted her a two-year extension.
The 2006 apex court verdict and subsequent directions in the Prakash Singh case had said the DGP of a state shall be "selected by the state government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the UPSC on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force".
And, once a person has been selected for the job, they should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation, it had said.
