A 2006 apex court ruling mandates that DGP appointments be based on merit, service record and leadership ability. It also expressly prohibits temporary or interim appointments.
Published Sep 08, 2025 | 9:48 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 08, 2025 | 9:48 PM
Supreme Court
Synopsis: The Supreme Court has directed the UPSC to expedite its review of the names recommended by the Tamil Nadu government for the appointment of the state’s new DGP. The directive was issued during the hearing of a contempt petition challenging the appointment of interim DGP Venkatraman. The state defended the process, citing delays owing to a tribunal case, and informed the bench that its list of recommendations had been forwarded to the UPSC.
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to promptly consider the list of names recommended by the Tamil Nadu government for the appointment of the state’s new Director General of Police (DGP).
The directive came during the hearing of a contempt petition filed against the state government over the DGP appointment process.
The petition was filed by advocate and social activist Henry Tipen, who argued that the appointment of interim DGP Venkatraman, a senior IPS officer, violated a 2006 Supreme Court ruling.
The 2006 judgment, delivered in response to a petition by former DGPs Prakash Singh and NK Singh, mandates that DGP appointments be based on merit, service record, and leadership ability.
It also requires state governments to forward a panel of the three senior-most IPS officers to the UPSC for selection, and expressly prohibits temporary or interim DGP appointments to prevent political interference.
During the hearing, Senior Advocates for Tamil Nadu, Mukul Rohatgi and Sabarish Subramanian, informed the bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai that the state had submitted its list of recommended officers to the UPSC.
When asked about the delay, the state’s counsel said it was caused by a case filed by a senior police officer before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking inclusion of his name in the recommended list.
They added that the officer’s petition had since been dismissed, allowing the state to forward the names.
The petitioner’s counsel pressed for contempt action against the state for violating the 2006 ruling.
Justice Gavai, however, said that while the court could not impose a strict deadline on the UPSC, it would direct the commission to expedite its review and make a decision without delay. The case was adjourned.
