Jharkhand DGP Tadasha Mishra (IPS:1994:JH)’s appointment to the top post just a day before her retirement last year has got enmeshed in a legal tangle, with senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, assisting the Supreme Court as amicus curiae, telling the apex court on Thursday that her appointment was illegal and done in violation of the Supreme Court’s rulings and order.
Mishra was appointed a full-time DGP on December 30, 2025, while she was to retire the very next day on December 31, 2025.
Earlier, while hearing a petition filed by former CM Babulal Marandi, the apex court had issued a show-cause notice to the Jharkhand govt in connection with the DGP’s appointment.
Now, the amicus has said in his report that the current DGP’s appointment one day prior to her retirement is clearly in complete violation of the principles laid down in the Prakash Singh case judgments, which required at least six months of residual service for being considered for the DGP post.
The Jharkhand govt framed its own rules, called the “Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025,” and removed that clause.
Former CM and senior BJP leader Babulal Marandi thus challenged the DGP’s appointment as well as the new rules framed by the state govt for the DGP selection.
Ramachandran told the top court that appointing a DGP with a residual tenure of less than six months is clearly against court directions.
The amicus said, “Impugned Rule 10(1)(d) provided a broad discretion to the state govt to move the DGP (HoPF), which could result in undue political pressure being placed on the DGP (HoPF) and undermine security and independence provided by the two-year tenure.
Further, while referring to Rule 8 on the timeline for sending the proposal for the DGP appointment, the advocate said that the purpose of prescribing the timeline was to ensure that the proposals should be sent three months in advance to provide certainty to the process and give sufficient time for consideration of eligible officers, leading to the appointment of an acting DGP in violation of the direction of this court.
At the same time, according to him, Paragraph 5(xii) of the UPSC guidelines provides a check on the violation of the three-month deadline, and this provision, or a similar external check, should have been retained.
There is likelihood that the top court hears this case along with the case related to the selection process of the Odisha DGP’s appointment on September 7, which was earlier scheduled to be heard on September 2.
Get Latest Updates