The state of Tamil Nadu faced controversy in 2025 over the appointment of a regular Director-General of Police (DGP). For the first time in recent years, the government failed to appoint a permanent police chief on time. Instead, G. Venkatraman, a 1994-batch IPS officer ranked sixth in seniority, was named as the in-charge DGP. The delay and the selection process sparked legal challenges and public debate.
Background of the Appointment Issue
Tamil Nadu was required to select a new DGP following the retirement of Shankar Jiwal on 30 August 2025. The state government missed the deadline to send a list of eligible officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The proposal reached the UPSC only on 29 August 2025, a day before the retirement. This delay violated Supreme Court guidelines.
Supreme Court Guidelines on DGP Appointment
In the 2006 Prakash Singh case, the Supreme Court mandated that states must select the DGP from the three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC. The selection should be based on seniority, service record, and experience. The chosen officer must have a minimum two-year tenure regardless of retirement age. States must send proposals to the UPSC at least three months before the vacancy.
Role of UPSC and State Government Disagreement
The UPSC prepared a panel of three senior DGP officers as per rules. Tamil Nadu rejected this panel, stating the officers were not acceptable. The State Law Minister accused the Centre and UPSC of ignoring the State’s preferences. The government also withdrew the integrity certificate of one officer and objected to empanelling others without clear reasons.
Legal Proceedings and Contempt Petitions
Two contempt petitions were filed against the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary for violating Supreme Court guidelines. Advocate Henri Tiphagne moved the Supreme Court alleging contempt due to the appointment of an in-charge DGP instead of a regular one. The Court directed the UPSC to expedite recommendations and the State to appoint a DGP promptly once received.
Current Status and Developments
The UPSC held a meeting on 26 September 2025 with the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary. Despite objections from the State, the UPSC upheld its recommendations. Petitioner Kishore Krishnaswamy filed a case accusing the State of wilful contempt for delaying the appointment. The Supreme Court has asked the State for a response within three weeks.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically discuss the role of the Supreme Court in enforcing administrative reforms in Indian police services, with reference to the Prakash Singh case.
- Analyse the impact of the Union Public Service Commission’s empanelment process on state autonomy in police appointments.
- Examine the challenges faced by federal structures in India when Centre-state relations influence law and order administration.
- Estimate the consequences of delayed appointments of key administrative officials on governance and public safety in states like Tamil Nadu.
Answer Hints:
1. Critically discuss the role of the Supreme Court in enforcing administrative reforms in Indian police services, with reference to the Prakash Singh case.
- Prakash Singh (2006) mandated transparent, merit-based selection of State DGPs to reduce political interference.
- Supreme Court prescribed a minimum two-year tenure for DGPs to ensure stability and continuity.
- It directed states to send proposals to UPSC three months prior to DGP vacancy, ensuring timely appointments.
- The Court’s guidelines aimed to professionalize police leadership and uphold rule of law.
- Enforcement challenges persist due to non-compliance by some states, reflecting limits of judicial directives.
- The case set a precedent for judicial activism in police reforms but requires cooperation from executive for effective implementation.
2. Analyse the impact of the Union Public Service Commission’s empanelment process on state autonomy in police appointments.
- UPSC empanelling senior IPS officers standardizes eligibility and ensures merit-based selection.
- It reduces arbitrary state discretion, limiting political interference in key police appointments.
- However, states may perceive UPSC’s role as encroachment on their administrative autonomy.
- Disagreements like Tamil Nadu’s rejection of UPSC panel show tensions between Centre and states.
- UPSC’s role promotes transparency but can delay appointments if states contest recommendations.
- Empanelment balances meritocracy with federal principles but requires mutual trust for smooth functioning.
3. Examine the challenges faced by federal structures in India when Centre-state relations influence law and order administration.
- Law and order is a state subject but Centre’s agencies (like UPSC) influence appointments, causing jurisdictional friction.
- Political differences between Centre and state governments often lead to conflicts over administrative decisions.
- States may resist Centre’s recommendations citing local preferences and political considerations.
- Delays and litigations arise when Centre-state cooperation breaks down, affecting governance.
- Judicial interventions attempt to mediate but cannot fully resolve political disputes inherent in federalism.
- Effective law and order administration requires balancing Centre’s oversight with state autonomy and cooperation.
4. Estimate the consequences of delayed appointments of key administrative officials on governance and public safety in states like Tamil Nadu.
- Delayed appointments create leadership vacuum, affecting decision-making and operational efficiency.
- Temporary or in-charge officials may lack authority or long-term vision, leading to administrative instability.
- Public confidence in law enforcement can erode due to perceived politicization and indecisiveness.
- Law and order challenges may escalate without strong, permanent police leadership.
- Governance suffers as policy implementation and reforms get stalled during leadership gaps.
- Such delays can invite judicial scrutiny and legal battles, further distracting administration.
