📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Arifin Sunarwan
Politics
Supreme Court: Sibal Challenges Centre's Decision on Jharkhand DGP Appointment Rules
✍️ ThePrint
🗓 09 Oct 2026, 02:37 PM
👁 25
In a hearing before the Supreme Court, former Union Law Minister Ajay M. Sibal contested the central government's move to single out Jharkhand over amended rules for appointing the Director General of Police.
The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by former Union Law Minister Ajay M. Sibal on Tuesday, questioning the central government's decision to single out the state of Jharkhand in its amended rules for appointing the Director General of Police (DGP). The petition argues that the changes made to the appointment process are discriminatory and violate the principles of equal treatment among states.
The amended rules, introduced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, allow the central government to appoint a DGP in a state where the state government has not yet nominated a candidate. Critics say that Jharkhand is the only state affected by this provision, raising concerns about selective intervention.
Sibal contended that the move undermines the autonomy of state police forces and contravenes the constitutional framework that governs police appointments. He urged the court to examine whether the centre has a legitimate basis for singling out Jharkhand and to ensure that the rule does not create a precedent for arbitrary central interference.
The court has not yet ruled on the petition. It is expected to deliberate on the issue in the coming weeks, with the possibility of a hearing that could set a precedent for how central and state governments interact over police appointments.
The amended rules, introduced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, allow the central government to appoint a DGP in a state where the state government has not yet nominated a candidate. Critics say that Jharkhand is the only state affected by this provision, raising concerns about selective intervention.
Sibal contended that the move undermines the autonomy of state police forces and contravenes the constitutional framework that governs police appointments. He urged the court to examine whether the centre has a legitimate basis for singling out Jharkhand and to ensure that the rule does not create a precedent for arbitrary central interference.
The court has not yet ruled on the petition. It is expected to deliberate on the issue in the coming weeks, with the possibility of a hearing that could set a precedent for how central and state governments interact over police appointments.