Odisha DGP Appointment: Supreme Court Directs UPSC To Defer Selection Till August 18

The Supreme Court today has directed the Union Public Service Commission not to convene it meeting, slated for today, to finalise the selection of the Director General of Police of for Odisha.

A CJI Surya Kant led bench has asked UPSC to defer the process till August 18, when the PIL challenging the DGP selection process will be considered by the Court.

Senior Advocate P Chidambaram mentioned the issue before a bench also comprising Justices Bagchi and Mohana. "They have violated the court's...they yesterday promoted an ADGP..please have it tomorrow..," the senior lawyer told court.

CJI Kant 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..".

"The DGP is set to retire on August 15..if no appointment happens, we will have an Acting DGP which is against this court's...the meeting is to happen today..," AG further told the bench, but the court went on to direct said meeting be deferred.

Two days back, the Supreme Court has 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 has 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

Mentioning Date: August 13, 2026