NEW delhi, Oct. 9 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the appointment of Jharkhand's first woman director general of police (DGP) Tadasha Mishra is in violation of its Prakash Singh judgment that required a residual tenure of at least six months for an officer to be considered for appointment as DGP. Mishra was appointed on December 30, 2025, with only a day left for her retirement. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant issued notice to Mishra requiring her response in the matter as her appointment was made under the Selection and Appointment of Director General and Inspector General of Police Jharkhand (Head of Police Force) Rules, 2025 which has been challenged in the top court by the Union government and in an application filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Babulal Marandi. The court asked the Jharkhand government to consider revisiting the 2025 Rules and asked the Jharkhand government to "revisit" the Rules by November 3, the next date of hearing in the matter. The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, "Such a provision (under the 2025 Rules) by which an officer is made eligible for appointment as DGP of state even if total service before date of appointment is less than six months seems to be directly in teeth of our judgment in Prakash Singh case (2006)." In the event of the Rules being annulled, the court said, "the consequent appointment of Tadasha Mishra as Jharkhand DGP will be required to be set aside." Before this is done, the court directed notice to be issued to her to respond in the present case. At the same time, the court added, "The state of Jharkhand will be at liberty to revisit the offending Rules." The court passed the order after going through a report submitted by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, assisting as amicus curiae, which faulted Mishra's appointment for being in default of the Prakash Singh guidelines. The court further directed Ramachandran to provide details of similar rules passed by any other state as the Jharkhand government opposed the Union government for singling out Jharkhand. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre said that the Union government kept writing to the Jharkhand government that its DGP appointment is in violation of the Prakash Singh judgment. He said, "The Union of India does not choose any state. This has come to our notice so we have filed an application. If they can point out any other state law or rules that is bad, that should also go." The Jharkhand government represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that when the Rules are already under consideration, there is no reason for the Union government to intervene. Sibal said, "Why should the solicitor general be so enthusiastic to challenge our Rules. There are much worse statutes in Bihar which are pending consideration in this court." He also referred to the DGP appointment in West Bengal where the incumbent DGP who was to retire on October 31 has recently been given a six-month extension by the Centre to allow him to continue till April 2027. "Maybe the Centre would like to file an application on this too," Sibal said. The bench remarked, "Our intention is not to see which is the state involved but the limited issue before us is to find out if there is a law in derogation of the Prakash Singh judgment." Ramachandran said, "There are Rules passed by other states which are also contrary to Prakash Singh judgment." The court directed the amicus to apprise it of all such laws and rules and the consequent appointments made based on those rules. The court further directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to respond in this regard. "If we find there is a state which has a rule violative of our order, we will hear them too," the bench said. Sibal told the court that while it is open to revisit the Rules, it will defend the appointment of Mishra as she is the first woman head of the police force for whom the state was willing to make an exception considering her past achievements. "She is an extraordinary officer. Why should we not give her a chance," Sibal said as the court permitted the state to file its response by the next date of hearing. In his report submitted to the court, the amicus stated that the provisions of the Jharkhand Rules which allows an officer having less than six months residual tenure to become DGP is clearly in violation of the court's Prakash Singh judgment. He further faulted the Rules for not following the Prakash Singh rule on the DGP appointment panel to be forwarded by state to the UPSC three months in advance of the vacancy date. Even on Mishra's appointment, the amicus said, "The appointment of the current DGP one day prior to her retirement is clearly in complete violation of the principles laid down in Prakash Singh judgments and orders."...