New Delhi/Bhubaneswar: The Supreme Court on Thursday postponed the hearing on the case pertaining to the appointment of the next Director General of Police (DGP) in Odisha to September 22.
The apex court was to continue hearing on Thursday on a PIL challenging the process adopted by the Odisha government for the appointment of the next DGP. The petitioners raised questions over the empanelment process and the list of eligible IPS officers sent by the Odisha government to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
The state government initially forwarded the names of three DG-rank officers to the UPSC for consideration. Objections were subsequently raised over the inclusion of additional officers in the list.
Subsequently, the report submitted by amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran to the court raised questions over the exclusion of senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath from the eligibility list and the issue concerning his integrity certificate. It also questioned the inclusion of two Additional DGPs in the selection process following their promotion.
The case is linked to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its 2006 Prakash Singh judgment. These guidelines require the UPSC to prepare a panel of the senior-most eligible officers for DGP selection and maintain transparency in the appointment process.
Raju Ramachandran had questioned the empanelment procedure in his submissions in the DGP appointment case, and urged the apex court to examine whether the selection process was affected by last-minute promotions, creation of temporary DGP-rank posts, alteration of the eligibility list, an unexplained service-year discrepancy and withholding of an eligible officer’s integrity certificate after the original proposal had already been sent to the UPSC.
Ramachandran, along with Dr Charu Mathur, focused in their submissions on procedural integrity, transparency and adherence to established guidelines, referring to the Prakash Singh judgments and recent actions by the Odisha government and UPSC.
The Amicus Curiae report expressed concern over the state government’s creation of temporary ex-cadre DGP posts just before the appointment process, which allowed two Additional DGPs to become eligible for selection to the post of DGP.
This was done after the original eligibility list of May 14, 2026, had already been submitted to the UPSC. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had earlier denied such posts, and the sudden reversal lacked clear justification, the amicus submitted.
The amicus has suggested that the selection process should proceed on the basis of the original May 14 eligibility list, insulating the appointment of Odisha’s DGP from subsequent administrative changes whose justification is now under scrutiny.
The amicus further suggested that the Odisha government should be directed to file an affidavit before the court stating the reasons for withholding the Integrity Certificate of one of the eligible DGP-level officers, given the prevailing position in law and the officer’s continuation in the post of DGP.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana had on September 7 heard the matter and adjourned the proceedings for a week.
The petitioners alleged that Odisha was attempting to shortlist a junior-ranking officer for the post of DGP, contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions in the Prakash Singh versus Union of India case, which mandate a panel comprising the senior-most officers with the minimum required service tenure.
The plea contended that the State’s move breached the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the 2006 Prakash Singh case, which require the UPSC to prepare a panel of three senior-most eligible officers for appointment as DGP to ensure transparency and insulate the process from political interference.
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 senior-most 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”.
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.
The outcome of the hearing will determine whether the state must reinstate its original senior panel or if a fresh empanelment process under the UPSC oversight will proceed.
