Supreme Court Directs UPSC to Expedite Appointment of Regular DGP in Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to expedite the process of recommending names for the appointment of a regular Director General of Police (DGP) in Tamil Nadu. The direction came while the Court was hearing a contempt petition alleging that the state government had violated the Top Court's earlier directions in the Prakash Singh v. Union of India judgment by appointing an acting police chief instead of following the prescribed procedure.

A Bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar questioned the state on why it had chosen to appoint an “acting” DGP despite clear prohibitions against such a practice. 

The Court noted that the process for appointing a regular DGP must be completed strictly in accordance with the framework it had laid down nearly two decades ago to insulate the post of the police chief from political interference and ensure professional independence.

Brief Background

The issue arose following the retirement of Tamil Nadu’s incumbent DGP, Shankar Jiwal, on August 31, 2025.

Anticipating the vacancy, the state’s Home Department had earlier shortlisted nine senior Indian Police Service officers and forwarded the list to the UPSC for consideration.

However, before the Commission could finalise its recommendations, the state appointed senior IPS officer G. Venkatraman, Director General of Police (Administration), as the acting DGP.

The appointment was criticised on the ground that it was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Prakash Singh, which barred the practice of temporary or stop gap appointments and mandated that a state must appoint a regular police chief from a panel recommended by the UPSC, with a minimum tenure of two years.

A public interest litigation filed in the Madras High Court sought directions to ensure that the state government adhered to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in appointing the next DGP and refrained from appointing an acting police chief.

The High Court, however, dismissed the petition as premature, while reminding the government that the process must be scrupulously followed.

The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court through a contempt petition filed by human rights activist Henri Tiphagne, who alleged that the state government’s decision to install an acting DGP amounted to a violation of the Court’s directions.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, submitted that the delay in finalising the appointment was due to pending litigation by one IPS officer who had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking inclusion in the panel of officers eligible for consideration.

The officer's plea was rejected by the Tribunal and later dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2025. 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the way was now clear for the UPSC to proceed with the empanelment and send its recommendations to the state.

Taking note of these submissions, the Top Court directed the UPSC to act without further delay. In its order, the Bench stated, “We request the UPSC to consider the matter expeditiously. On the recommendation received from the UPSC, the respondent state shall take steps for appointing a regular DGP.”

The Court's direction makes it clear that the state is bound to choose the new police chief only from the UPSC panel and cannot continue with its arrangement of an acting head of the police force.

The judgment in Prakash Singh delivered in 2006 had sought to reform the process of appointing police chiefs across the country. Among other measures, it required that the names of senior officers be sent to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent, that the Commission shortlist three officers based on merit and seniority, and that the state appoint a regular DGP from this panel. The ruling also guaranteed a minimum two year tenure for the appointee and was aimed at depoliticising the police leadership. 

Case Title: Henri Tiphagne v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Date of Order: September 8, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar