SC Takes Exception To ‘Acting DGP’ Culture In States

The apex court, in its order earlier this month, came down heavily on the States that have bypassed established norms for appointing full-time DGPs and, instead, allowed officers to continue as acting chiefs for extended periods — in some cases, even for years.

The court also directed the UPSC to take proactive steps to prevent delays in determining panels of eligible officers for States to choose the DGP, following due process. 

Even as the Supreme Court’s directive does not immediately compel specific fixed tenure dates, it gives a clear signal for a shift towards enforcing compliance with established practices originally laid in the Prakash Singh judgment (2006), which sought to depoliticise police appointments and secure regular tenure for heads of police.

Impact On States

The ruling has particularly placed a major focus on Tamil Nadu, where the State government has been continuing with an acting DGP despite the UPSC recommending a panel of eligible officers several months ago. Punjab, which has had an acting DGP in place for over three years, has also come under scrutiny. Officials said that the state is in a “wait-and-watch” mode, anticipating follow-up action from the UPSC after the court’s directive.

Uttar Pradesh is another State that has relied on acting DGPs.

Since 2017, Telangana has not had a regular DGP, with the State submitting a proposal only in 2025. Hence, the court ruling impacts Telangana, giving it the thrust to initiate timely action.

In West Bengal, the appointment of the next DGP remains uncertain, as the UPSC has challenged a tribunal order in the Delhi High Court, delaying a permanent appointment and keeping the acting arrangement in place.

In Jharkhand, a case is pending in the Ranchi High Court, which highlights ongoing concerns about Jharkhand’s practice of appointing acting DGPs.

Guidelines In Prakash Singh Judgment

The States were mandated to appoint DGPs from a UPSC-recommended panel of the three senior-most eligible IPS officers. The appointee should be given a minimum two-year fixed tenure to ensure independence from political influence.

The SC’s recent ruling, dated February 5, 2026, admonished the practice of “shying away” from making regular appointments and criticised the practice of posting acting DGPs. It also expressly empowered the UPSC to remind States and, if necessary, come back to the court in the event of States failing to comply with sending timely recommendations.

The ruling of the apex court is an enforcement push that could lead to a wave of regular DGP appointments, reducing ad hoc arrangements and strengthening leadership.

Even as the State governments have so far responded with varying degrees of compliance, the UPSC has been explicitly directed to act as a gatekeeper against undue delays in formal appointments. Legal experts are of the view that this would lead to more regularised police leadership in the coming months. “We’re likely to see a series of formal appointments and reduced reliance on acting DGPs, which will enhance institutional integrity,” said a senior administrative law expert.