The long-pending issue of a regular appointment to the post of Director General of Police (DGP) in Punjab has now reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, bringing renewed focus on the state’s police leadership and the need for institutional stability.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has alleged that Punjab has been functioning without a regularly appointed DGP for nearly four years, with the top police post being managed through an additional-charge arrangement. The High Court has directed the Punjab government to file an affidavit explaining its position in the matter.
The case is now scheduled to be heard on October 1, 2026.
PIL Questions Prolonged Additional-Charge Arrangement
The PIL, filed by advocate Nikhil Thamman, has described the prolonged arrangement as a serious institutional concern. The petitioner has sought the appointment of a regular DGP, arguing that the head of the state police force should hold the position through a formal and stable appointment rather than continue on an additional-charge basis for an extended period.
The petition raises broader questions about the independence, continuity and effectiveness of police administration when the top post remains under a temporary arrangement for years.
According to the petitioner, a regular appointment provides greater institutional clarity and allows the DGP to exercise authority with a defined tenure. This, in turn, can contribute to greater consistency in policing, law-and-order management and public confidence in the police administration.
Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh Judgment Cited
The petitioner has relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh & Others vs Union of India, which laid down several directions aimed at bringing reforms and greater accountability to the functioning of police forces across the country.
The plea has also referred to subsequent directions issued by the Supreme Court on March 13, 2019, concerning the procedure for appointing state police chiefs.
The petitioner has argued that the Supreme Court framework envisages the selection of a state DGP from a panel prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), with the objective of ensuring a transparent and institutionalised appointment process.
The PIL questions whether keeping the state’s top police position under an extended temporary arrangement is consistent with the spirit and requirements of these judicial directions.
Claim That UPSC Panel Was Already Sent to Punjab
A key claim made in the petition is that the UPSC has allegedly already provided a panel of eligible officers to the Punjab government for the appointment of a regular DGP.
Despite this, the petitioner claims, the state has not proceeded with a regular appointment.
The petitioner had also issued a legal notice to the concerned authorities on August 24, 2026, seeking action towards the appointment of a regular DGP.
If established, the issue could raise questions not only about administrative delay but also about adherence to the institutional mechanism prescribed for police leadership appointments.
High Court Seeks Government’s Response
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor.
The High Court has directed the Punjab government to place its response on record through an affidavit. The government’s explanation will be significant in determining why the additional-charge arrangement has continued for such a prolonged period and what steps, if any, have been taken towards a regular appointment.
The matter will next come up for hearing on October 1, 2026.
More Than an Appointment: An Institutional Question
At its core, the Punjab DGP controversy is not merely about who occupies the state’s top police post. It raises a larger question about how key constitutional and administrative institutions function when temporary arrangements become prolonged.
A regular DGP with a defined tenure can provide continuity in policing priorities and greater institutional accountability. Conversely, a prolonged additional-charge arrangement can create uncertainty over leadership and raise questions about the autonomy and stability of the police establishment.
As the Punjab government prepares to file its affidavit, the High Court proceedings are likely to bring greater scrutiny to the circumstances behind the prolonged arrangement and the state’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s police-reform framework.
The October 1 hearing could therefore prove significant—not just for the appointment of Punjab’s next regular DGP, but for the broader question of institutional stability and police governance in the state.