Supreme Court Asks UPSC To Send Recommendations For Tamil Nadu DGP Appointment Soon

The Supreme Court today (September 8) asked the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) to expeditiously consider sending recommendations for the appointment of the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu.

On receipt of recommendations from the UPSC, the State should immediately process the appointment of a regular DGP, the Court added.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a contempt petition filed by human rights lawyer, Henri Thipange, against the State of Tamil Nadu, over non-compliance of the Top Court's 2018 interim directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.

Tiphagne has filed the contempt petition alleging that the state of Tamil Nadu has not appointed a regular DGP and still continued to have an acting DGP. 

Sr Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state of Tamil Nadu, submitted that the delay in appointment was due to the fact that one of the IPS officers filed a proceeding before the CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) praying for inclusion of his name in the panel. 

When the CAT dismissed his review petition on April 30, 2025, he moved the Supreme Court. His plea was then dismissed on August 22, 2025. 

Considering the same, the bench directed the UPSC to give its recommendation to the State government soon. The relevant part of the order states : 

"We request the UPSC to consider the matter expeditiously. On the recommendation received from the UPSC, the respondent states shall take steps for appointing a regular DGP." 

What Is The Order Of July 2018 About? 

As per the order of  July 3, 2018, the following key directions were passed : 

 (a) All the States shall send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission, well in time at least three months prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent on the post of Director General of Police;

 (b) The Union Public Service Commission shall prepare the panel as per the directions of this Court in the judgment in Prakash Singh's case(supra) and intimate to the States;

(c) The State shall immediately appoint one of the persons from the panel prepared by the Union Public Service Commission;

(d) None of the States shall ever conceive of the idea of appointing any person on the post of Director General of Police on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police as per the decision in Prakash Singh's case(supra);

(e) An endeavour has to be made by all concerned to see that the person who was selected and appointed as the Director General of Police continues despite his date of superannuation. However, the extended term beyond the date of superannuation should be a reasonable period. We say so as it has been brought to our notice that some of the States have adopted a practice to appoint the Director General of Police on the last date of retirement as a consequence of which the person continues for two years after his date of superannuation. Such a practice will not be in conformity with the spirit of the direction; 

(f) Our direction No.(c) should be considered by the Union Public Service Commission to mean that the persons are to be empanelled, as far as practicable, from amongst the people within the zone of consideration who have got clear two years of service. Merit and seniority should be given due weightage.

(g) Any legislation/rule framed by any of the States or the Central Government running counter to the direction shall remain in abeyance to the aforesaid extent

Case Details : HENRI TIPHAGNE vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU| Diary No. - 49640/2025 

Click Here To Read/Download Order