The Supreme Court criticized Jharkhand's DGP appointment process for violating its Prakash Singh judgement on residual tenure requirements, issued a notice to Tadasha Mishra appointed a day before retirement, and directed the state to revisit its 2025 regulations while allowing it to file a counter-affidavit in defense.
AI-generated summary
The Supreme Court's Prakash Singh judgement mandated that officers with six months or more residual tenure must be considered for the top police post. Jharkhand amended its DGP appointment regulations in 2025 to remove this requirement.
File photo: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday said the Jharkhand's DGP appointment process prima facie violated its Prakash Singh judgement, which mandated consideration of officers with six months or more residual tenure for the top police post, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. It issued a notice to Tadasha Singh, who was appointed to the post a day before her retirement. On an application filed by Centre alleging the state's DGP appointment regulation overreached the court's judgement, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, "In the event of the regulation being annulled, the appointment of Tadasha Mishra... would be required to be set aside. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to accord her one opportunity of being heard, for which Jharkhand govt is directed to serve notice on her to enable her to appear.
Join conversation
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
.." SC further said Jharkhand should "revisit" Selection and Appointment of DGP (Head of Police Force) Regulations, 2025, adding that if the state wanted to defend the regulation, it could file a counter-affidavit. Centre, through SG Tushar Mehta, said the regulation was amended in 2025 to do away with the residual tenure requirement and two DGP appointments were made though they had days left for retirement. Jharkhand, through senior advocate Kapil Sibal, took umbrage at Centre's selective targeting when many states had provisions that militate against the Prakash Singh judgement's mandate.
End of Article
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear petitions filed by editors of 'The Hindu' and 'Murasoli' newspapers regarding a 2003 Tamil Nadu assembly resolution that led to arrest warrants against journalists, with the assembly having since withdrawn the resolution, rendering the case academic after nearly 23 years of pendency.
The Supreme Court revived a Look Out Circular against the parents of an NRI father who secretly took his three-and-a-half-year-old daughter to the US without informing his wife, warning them to face legal consequences if he does not return the child to India within four weeks.
An Arizona appeals court ordered a resentencing for Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, convicted of a 2021 road-rage killing, ruling that an AI-generated video of the victim 'forgiving' the shooter presented fabricated thoughts and rendered the sentencing process unfair.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Gruha Kalyan Proprietorship Firm to refund homebuyers with 9% interest and compensation after a Bengaluru housing project was stalled for over two decades.
The Madras High Court ruled that tenants under unregistered agreements must prove a valid landlord-tenant relationship, or face eviction as unauthorized occupants.
The Madras High Court ruled that a tenant cannot claim eviction protection without proving a valid landlord-tenant relationship and the execution of an unregistered rent agreement signed by an authorized person.