DGP Appointment: Supreme Court Questions Odisha For Excluding Senior IPS Officer

The Supreme Court has questioned the Odisha government over the exclusion of senior IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath from consideration for appointment as the State’s Director General of Police (DGP).

A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana while hearing the challenge to the DGP selection process raised concerns over the State government's decision to withhold Nath's integrity certificate following developments in a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities in the Odisha Sub-Inspector recruitment examination.

The CBI had registered an FIR on November 12, 2025, but Nath was not named as an accused in the FIR. His name was nevertheless forwarded by Odisha to the UPSC in May 2026 for consideration for the DGP post.

Court has questioned whether the State was aware of the CBI proceedings when it forwarded Nath's name to the UPSC and, if so, why the relevant information was not placed before the Commission. The Bench also questioned whether merely being liable to be examined in an investigation could justify withholding an integrity certificate.

Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for Nath, submitted that there was no pending CBI request seeking permission to interrogate him and that he had not been named as an accused.

The dispute concerns Odisha's modification of its list of officers eligible for consideration after two ADG-rank officers were promoted to DG rank. The petitioners allege that the process enlarged the zone of consideration contrary to the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, which govern the appointment of State DGPs.

In August, the Supreme Court had directed the Union Public Service Commission not to convene it meeting to finalise the selection of the Director General of Police of for Odisha. 

Senior Advocate P Chidambaram had mentioned the issue before the bench. "They have violated the court's...they yesterday promoted an ADGP..please have it tomorrow..," the senior lawyer had told court. CJI Kant had then assured Chidambaram that if the court found any violation of its directions, it would set aside the appointment.

Advocate General for the state of Odisha AG questioned the PIL saying it has been filed with ulterior motives. To this Justice Bagchi said, "We are not concerned with the credentials of Mr. Chidambaram's client..".

Earlier, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear a PIL against the Odisha government's decision to appoint the Director General of Police, in breach of the apex court's directions issued in the 2006 Prakash Singh case. Senior Advocate P Chidambaram had mentioned the issued before a CJI Surya Kant led bench saying that the state government is trying to include a junior officer in the list of probable candidates for the Director General of Police post.

The incumbent DGP, YB Khurania, will demit office on August 15 this year. Chidambaram informed court today that UPSC was scheduled to meet on August 7 to consider a panel of three eligible candidates for the Odisha appointment, but the state withdrew the list of officers. "The State of Odisha is breaching the Prakash Singh judgment. On August 7, the UPSC was scheduled to meet to select from among the three DGPs. Odisha withdrew the list. They are now making another list to send," the senior lawyer had submitted.

"They are trying to promote an ADGP, either today or last night, and then smuggle him into the list and get him considered," he added. To this, the CJI said that as per an earlier order, the UPSC is duty-bound to approach the court in case of non-compliance of the directions.

In February 2026, the Supreme Court reiterated that States must follow the prescribed procedure for appointing DGPs. Under the framework, the UPSC is required to prepare a panel of eligible officers, following which the State government must appoint the DGP from among those empanelled.

The Court had also made it clear that the prescribed eligibility criteria cannot be bypassed merely because the number of eligible officers is limited. Under the existing framework, the apex-level DGP post in Level 17 is to be filled through selection from among officers holding DGP-level posts in Level 16. The Supreme Court had also directed States facing disputes over DGP appointments to adhere to the prescribed procedure and required the UPSC to make its recommendations within the stipulated timeframe after receiving a revised proposal from the concerned State.

The Supreme Court’s landmark Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) judgment laid down key guidelines to insulate the police force from political interference and ensure greater professionalism in policing. One of its significant directions concerned the appointment and tenure of the Director General of Police (DGP). The Court directed that the State Government must select the DGP from among the three senior-most eligible officers, who are empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) based on their length of service, very good service record and experience in heading a police force. The selected DGP must be provided a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of superannuation.

The Court subsequently clarified that the two-year requirement refers to the minimum tenure after appointment, and does not mean that only officers with two years of residual service can be considered. In 2019, it directed that the UPSC panel should comprise officers having at least six months of residual service before retirement.

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: September 24, 2026

Case Title: PRAKASH SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA