Jharkhand High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Rules For Selection And Appointment Of State's DGP & DIG

The Jharkhand High Court has issued notice on a PIL filed by BJP leader and former Chief Minister Babulal Marandi seeking striking down of Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025 in particular Rules 4, 5(C) and 10, as manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and ultra vires.

A division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan heard the matter on March 24 and listed it for further hearing on June 16. The court further asked the respondents to file their counter affidavit

The genesis of the PIL lay in the initial removal of Ajay Kumar Singh from the Director General of Police ("DGP") post claiming it was without adhering to the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) and the subsequent appointment of Anurag Gupta as interim DGP. In the wake of the Vidhan Sabha election in Jharkhand, Ajay Kumar Singh was reappointed, however, was replaced again by Anurag Gupta. Thereafter, the 2025 Rules were introduced by virtue of an executive order.

The petitioner had filed a public interest litigation challenging the 2025 Rules as primarily being violative of the dictum in Prakash Singh. The Supreme Court had prescribed certain mandatory directions for the Union of India and respective State Governments to follow. It was held in the case that appointments to the post of Director DGP must be made in strict adherence to the procedure prescribed therein, which has to be done by names empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

The directions mandated the State Government to send proposed names to the UPSC, which would prepare the panel of names from the list sent by the State Government. After the empanelled list was sent by the UPSC to the State Government, the latter could appoint one person out of the list as the DGP of the State. Additionally, the Court later clarified that any legislation/rule framed by any of the States or the Central Government running counter to the direction shall remain in abeyance. The rationale behind the ruling was to prevent arbitrary political interference in police administration.

The petitioner argued in the PIL that Rule 5(C) bypasses the mandatory direction of having the nominated person for the post of DGP to have a minimum residual tenure of 6 months when the names are being sent to the UPSC. Instead, the provision states that the length of the service of the officer shall be 6 months or more from the date of occurrence of the vacancy of the post of DGP. Further, the petitioner argued that Rule 10(2) is ambiguous in terms of the duration of the appointment of an acting DGP if the serving DGP is removed for any reason prescribed under the proviso to Rule 10(1).

“This gives the State arbitrary power to appoint an acting DGP for an indefinite period, which has been discouraged and disallowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,” the plea states. 

The petitioner further contended that the 2025 Rules create a nomination committee which excludes UPSC from the selection process. The committee under Rule 4 comprises a retired High Court Judge as the Chairperson, the State Chief Secretary, a UPSC nominee, the Chairman or a JPSC nominee, the Additional/Principal Secretary or Secretary of the Home Department (Member Secretary), and a retired State DGP, which diverges from the mandated procedure and, thereby, undermines the impartiality and authority of the UPSC.

Additionally, where the State Government is to relieve a DGP of his responsibilities, it can only be done in consultation with the State Security Commission. However, the petitioner highlighted that there was “no whisper of a State Security Commission” in the 2025 Rules. Neither was there any clarity on whether the State of Jharkhand had even formed a State Security Commission in line with the directives of the Supreme Court.

The petitioner also asserted that,

“…through the impugned rules, the State Government has encroached upon the Central Government's exclusive power to grant appointments, promotions and extensions in service to IPS officers beyond their retirement date according to All India Service Rules. It is the powers of the Central Government to grant such extensions, not the State Government, and in the case of the DGP, the extension can only be given if the appointment follows the Prakash Singh judgment guidelines. However, the impugned rules have usurped the power of the Central Government and, acting contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Prakash Singh case, have taken it upon itself to grant an extension to Respondent No. 3, which goes against the All India Service Rules.”

Moreover, it was contended that the application of the 2025 Rules would- (i) not only undermine the principle that State's executive and rule-making authority is constitutionally bound and cannot bypass judicial mandates, but also set a “perilous precedent where powers are misused to diminish the Judiciary's authority”, (ii), interfere with the right to a fair, independent, and impartial process of appointment of the head of police leading to violation of fundamental rights and the rule of law, and (iii) “nullify a Supreme Court directive and represent an impermissible encroachment by the executive into the Judiciary's domain”, thereby, compromising judicial supremacy and violating the doctrine of separation of powers which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Case Details:

Case Name: Babulal Marandi vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Case Number: WPC 1194/2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Sumeet Gadodia and Shailesh Poddar

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Rajiv Ranjan, Faiz Ur Rahman, Anil Kumar (Addl.SGI)