In a major push for police independence, the Supreme Court on Thursday empowered the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to launch contempt proceedings against state governments that drag their feet on sending Director General of Police (DGP) proposals. This comes amid growing frustration over states appointing temporary "acting DGPs," sidelining senior officers and fueling political favoritism.
Back in 2006, the landmark Prakash Singh judgment laid down clear rules to shield police leadership from political interference. States must select their DGP from a panel of three senior-most officers empanelled by UPSC. A 2018 clarification added: Proposals must reach UPSC three months before the current DGP retires.
But many states flout this. They delay submissions, forcing ad-hoc appointments. Senior cops retire without a shot at the top job, while politically aligned officers get temporary reigns. UPSC told the court this "deprives meritorious officers" and undermines the system.
The trigger was UPSC's plea against a Telangana High Court order demanding DGP selection in four weeks. Chief Justice Surya Kant's bench, CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, grilled UPSC counsel Naresh Kaushik: "Why no contempt against Telangana for ignoring the three-month rule?"
CJI didn't mince words: "States don't want a real DGP, they want acting or ad-hoc ones that suit them." UPSC got four extra weeks for Telangana but won a bigger weapon: authority to remind states in writing for timely proposals. Ignore it? UPSC files contempt in the Prakash Singh case, pinning accountability on guilty officials.
Case: UPSC vs. T Dhangopal Rao (SLP(C) No. 004668/2026).
