
The Centre’s contempt plea over Tadasha Mishra’s appointment brings a larger question into focus: when institutions make consequential appointments, can established judicial safeguards be altered without first seeking the Court’s approval?
A Dispute Over the Rules
The Centre has challenged Jharkhand’s 2025 regulations governing the appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP), arguing that they depart from safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh police-reforms case. The Court has agreed to examine the plea seeking contempt proceedings against the State government and others.
The Six-Month Question
At the heart of the dispute is the Supreme Court’s direction that officers considered for appointment as DGP should have at least six months of service remaining. Jharkhand’s amended framework removed this requirement. TadashaMishra, a 1994-batch IPS officer, was appointed DGP on December 30, 2025—one day before her scheduled retirement.
The Centre has also questioned an earlier appointment under the same framework: Anurag Gupta was appointed DGP in February 2025 despite having only about three months of service remaining.
A Question of Institutional Discipline
The issue extends beyond one appointment or one State. The Supreme Court has indicated that Jharkhand’s rules prima facie appear to conflict with its earlier directions, while the State has indicated a willingness to revisit the rules.
The Larger Message: Rules Must Outlast Individuals
A police chief’s appointment carries consequences far beyond the tenure of one officer. Institutional credibility depends on processes that remain transparent, consistent and faithful to the law. The case therefore offers a lasting reminder: governments may frame policies, but where judicial directions govern the field, institutional authority is strongest when procedure is respected—not redesigned to fit the moment.