The appointment of Odisha’s next Director General of Police (DGP) has become a matter before the Supreme Court. The issue centres on the state government’s decision to widen the pool of officers who could be considered for the post. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for August 18, while the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has assured the court that its empanelment committee will not meet in the meantime.
Timeline
April 2026: Odisha sends three DG-rank officers’ names to the UPSC for consideration as the next DGP.
May 2026: Odisha expands the pool to 11 officers by adding eight Additional Director General (ADG)-rank officers.
August 7: The UPSC empanelment committee meets in New Delhi. Odisha tells the UPSC that it plans to withdraw the integrity certificate of one of the three officers, Susanta Nath. The meeting produces no outcome.
August 10: Sanjeeb Panda and YK Jethwa, both ADG-rank officers, are promoted to DG rank.
August 11: Senior advocate P Chidambaram seeks an urgent hearing before the Supreme Court, alleging that the DGP selection process is not in accordance with the court’s earlier directions.
August 13: A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant says it is inclined to hear the petition and lists it for August 18. The UPSC assures the court that its empanelment committee will not meet before then.
August 16: Incumbent DGP YB Khurania is due to retire.
August 18: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter again.
Q&A
What is the immediate issue before the Supreme Court?
The petition challenges Odisha’s decision to widen the pool of officers who can be considered for appointment as DGP.
The allegation is that the state is trying to include a relatively junior officer, who was earlier an Additional Director General (ADG), in the selection process in a manner that goes against the Supreme Court’s earlier directions.
Why is the timing important?
Incumbent DGP YB Khurania is due to retire on August 16.
The Supreme Court has now listed the matter for August 18. The UPSC has also assured the court that its empanelment committee will not meet during this period.
This means Odisha will not be able to appoint its next full-time DGP before Khurania retires.
What had Odisha initially sent to the UPSC?
In April, Odisha sent three names to the UPSC.
They were Sudhansu Sarangi, a 1990-batch officer, and Susanta Nath and RP Koche, both from the 1993 batch.
All three were DG-rank officers.
Why were these three seen as the main contenders?
Sarangi, Nath and Koche were the senior officers in the original pool.
Sarangi, who heads the Fire Services Directorate, is the senior-most officer among them and is also one of the senior-most IPS officers in India.
Koche is the Director of Intelligence, while Nath is DG (Prisons).
What happened to the list later?
The Odisha government expanded the pool from three officers to 11.
It added eight ADG-rank officers to the list.
What happened at the UPSC meeting on August 7?
The empanelment committee met in New Delhi on August 7.
Odisha told the UPSC that it was planning to withdraw the integrity certificate of Susanta Nath.
The meeting therefore ended without an outcome.
What happened after that?
Odisha promoted Sanjeeb Panda and YK Jethwa, both ADG-rank officers, to DG rank.
The promotion notification was issued on August 10.
Why do these promotions matter to the DGP selection?
Before their promotion, Panda and Jethwa were ADG-rank officers.
They were in Level-15 of the pay matrix.
After being promoted to DG rank, they moved to Level-16, the same level as the three DG-rank officers already in the pool.
The DGP rank is in Level-17.
What does the Odisha government say?
Official sources in the state government say the promotions of senior IPS officers are a routine service matter.
They maintain that the government is within its rights to send a fresh proposal containing officers who now meet the required rank.
What is the petitioner's allegation?
The petition alleges that Odisha is trying to get around the Supreme Court’s guidelines on DGP selection.
The petition was mentioned before the Supreme Court on August 11 by senior advocate P Chidambaram, who sought an urgent hearing.
What did the Supreme Court do?
The bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joyamala Bagchi and V Mohana, took up the matter.
On August 13, the bench said it was inclined to hear the petition and posted it for August 18.
What did Odisha’s Advocate General say?
Odisha Advocate General Pitambar Acharya denied that the government had violated the norms.
He also questioned whether the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was maintainable.
What did the amicus curiae say?
The bench sought the views of senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and the amicus curiae, a person assisting the court in the matter.
The amicus curiae expressed concerns about the selection process and sought clarifications.
What is the role of the UPSC in selecting a state DGP?
Under the Supreme Court’s directions, the UPSC empanels eligible officers for consideration.
The Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment said the DGP should be selected from among the three senior-most officers who are empanelled by the UPSC for promotion to that rank.
The UPSC is to consider their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force.
What did the Supreme Court say about a DGP’s tenure?
The 2006 judgment said that once appointed, a DGP should have a two-year tenure.
This applies irrespective of the officer’s date of superannuation.
What is the Prakash Singh case?
Prakash Singh vs Union of India is a 2006 Supreme Court judgment that laid down major directions for police reforms in India.
The case was filed by Prakash Singh, a decorated and Padma Award-winning IPS officer who had served as DGP in Assam and Uttar Pradesh.
He filed the petition in 1996.
Why did Prakash Singh file the case?
The petition sought a new Police Act based on the recommendations of the National Police Commission.
The aim was to make the police accountable primarily to the law and the people.
What was the National Police Commission?
The Union government set up the National Police Commission in 1977.
It was asked to examine the role and performance of the police, its independence as a law enforcement agency and its responsibility to protect citizens’ constitutional rights.
Why was such a commission considered necessary?
There was a growing view that India had undergone major social, political and economic changes since the Indian Police Act, 1861, a law enacted during British rule.
The commission was therefore asked to examine whether changes were needed in the way the police were governed and administered.
What did the commission recommend?
Among other things, it recommended measures to prevent the misuse of police powers through administrative or executive instructions, political pressure, other pressures or oral orders that went against the law.
It also called for quick and impartial inquiry into public complaints about misuse of police powers.
How many reports did the commission submit?
The National Police Commission submitted eight reports, including its final report, between 1979 and 1981.
They covered police governance, administration, use of authority, police independence and human rights issues.
What happened to those recommendations?
Many of the recommendations remained unimplemented for decades.
That was one of the reasons Prakash Singh approached the Supreme Court in 1996.
What did the Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment change?
The judgment laid down a set of guidelines for police reforms.
A key aim was to keep the police force independent and free from influence and pressure, particularly from the political executive.
It also set rules for the selection and tenure of state DGPs.
Did the Supreme Court issue further directions on DGP selection?
Yes.
In 2018 and 2019, the Supreme Court issued further orders setting out detailed procedures.
One important direction required states to send their proposals to the UPSC three months before the incumbent DGP’s retirement.
Why did the Supreme Court issue further clarifications?
States were found to be using different ways to get around the rules.
The Supreme Court therefore issued further clarifications on the procedure over the following years.
What are the UPSC rules on the officers who can be considered?
The normal zone of consideration includes officers holding DGP posts in the state cadre in Level-16 of the pay matrix on the date the vacancy occurs.
Can ADG-rank officers also be considered?
Yes, in certain circumstances.
If there is no eligible Level-16 officer, or if the empanelment committee does not find a suitable officer for the panel, the zone of consideration can include ADG officers in Level-15 of the state cadre.
Is there a service requirement for such ADG officers?
Yes.
The officers should have completed 30 years of service.
If no suitable officer is found even then, the zone of consideration can be expanded to officers with 25 years of experience.
Why is this flexibility allowed?
The flexibility is meant for smaller states that have a smaller pool of officers available for consideration.
Why has the DGP selection process become controversial in other states too?
DGP selection in several states has faced disputes over whether the process followed the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
The Supreme Court has issued clarifications from time to time as these issues arose.
What did the Supreme Court say about acting DGPs?
Earlier this year, while hearing a case concerning the Telangana DGP appointment, the Supreme Court observed that states appeared to be avoiding the appointment of full-time DGPs and instead choosing acting police chiefs.
Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were among the states found to have used the acting-DGP practice for prolonged periods.
What did the Supreme Court say in 2018 about acting DGPs?
The Supreme Court directed states to send their DGP proposals at least three months before the incumbent DGP retired.
It also made clear that states should not plan to appoint an Acting DGP.
The court said there was no such concept in the Prakash Singh case.
What new guidelines did the UPSC issue this year?
On January 8, 2026, the UPSC issued a fresh set of guidelines after observing that several states were sending proposals for empanelment committee meetings in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.
What changed in the new guidelines?
Based on the advice of the Attorney General of India, the UPSC added a new clause.
It says a state must seek the Supreme Court’s permission or clarification if it submits the DGP panel late.
What does Clause (xii) of Section 5 say?
It says the state must seek leave or clarification from the Supreme Court for delayed submission, except in cases involving the death, resignation or premature relieving of a DGP covered by the Supreme Court’s September 2, 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case.
What happens next in Odisha?
The Odisha government will have to wait for the Supreme Court to take up the matter on August 18.If the court allows the process to proceed, the appointment of a new DGP could move ahead.If the court finds that its guidelines have been violated, the judicial proceedings will continue.
In the meanwhile, has Odisha made an interim arrangement?
Yes. On August 14, 2026, the government notified that Vinaytosh Mishra, currently DGP, Crime Branch, will hold additional charge as DGP from August 16 until further orders.
