The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea challenging the appointment of Jharkhand’s Director General of Police (DGP), Anurag Gupta, amid allegations that his continuation in office violates the apex court’s directions in the landmark Prakash Singh v. Union of India case on police reforms.
The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran by Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, who is representing a group of social activists.
“This pertains to the appointment of the current DGP in Jharkhand who continues to hold office despite not meeting the eligibility laid down by the Court. There is a serious tussle — the state even stopped his salary for a while, only to start it again. This instability is affecting the administration,” she submitted.
Taking note of the concerns raised, the bench agreed to list the matter for hearing before a three-judge bench next week, likely on Wednesday or Thursday.
The petition draws attention to the Supreme Court’s 2006 verdict in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, which laid down a series of directions aimed at insulating the police from political interference. These included the establishment of a State Security Commission and the requirement that only the most senior officers be appointed as DGPs through a transparent process — not in an acting or temporary capacity.
In 2018, the Supreme Court had further clarified that appointing DGPs on an acting basis was impermissible and went against the spirit of its earlier judgment. Despite this, the Jharkhand government had appointed Anurag Gupta as acting DGP, prompting legal objections.
In fact, on September 6, 2024, a bench led by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had already sought a response from the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand in a contempt petition that alleged Gupta’s appointment violated court orders.
With the state’s top police post caught in legal crossfire, and concerns being raised over administrative interference, the matter now heads to a crucial hearing before a constitutional bench of the apex court — one that could reaffirm or redefine the boundaries set by the Court nearly two decades ago in its police reforms roadmap.