Urgent Supreme Court Hearing Scheduled

The Supreme Court of India agreed to an urgent hearing for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that the Odisha state government is violating apex court guidelines in the selection of the state’s next Director General of Police (DGP). A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana agreed to list the matter for Wednesday, August 12, 2026.

Impending Vacancy and Administrative Pressure

The petition carries immediate urgency as the incumbent Odisha DGP, Y.B. Khurania, is scheduled to retire on August 16, 2026, leaving the government with minimal time to finalize a successor.

Key Allegations Submitted by Counsel

Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioners, raised several points regarding the state government’s conduct:

• Withdrawal of Candidates List: The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was scheduled to meet on August 7, 2026, to review candidates. However, the state government allegedly withdrew its proposed list right before the meeting after the UPSC insisted on considering only eligible DGP-rank officers.
• Controversial Promotions: Ahead of the selection process, the state elevated two Additional Director Generals of Police (ADGPs)—Sanjeeb Panda and Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa—to the rank of DGP.
• Manipulating the Panel: Chidambaram alleged that these rapid promotions were executed to “smuggle” a newly promoted officer into the revised panel to be submitted to the UPSC, bypassing seniority norms.
• Chronology of Panel Submissions:
  • April 2026: Initial panel forwarded to UPSC, later withdrawn.
  • May 2026: Panel of 11 officers submitted (3 holding DGP rank—Sudhanshu Sarangi, Susanta Kumar Nath, and R.P. Koche—and 8 holding ADGP rank).
  • August 7, 2026: UPSC demurred over including ADGP-level officers, leading the state to pull the list once again to prepare a fresh panel.

Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines (Prakash Singh Mandate)

The PIL contends that these actions breach the landmark 2006 Prakash Singh v. Union of India judgment, which mandates that:

1. The state DGP must be chosen from a panel of the three senior-most, eligible officers empanelled by the UPSC based on length of service, professional record, and experience.
2. The appointed officer must receive a minimum two-year tenure, irrespective of their date of superannuation.

Reason for Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Chidambaram highlighted that the issue was brought as a PIL because serving IPS officers eligible for the post would be professionally hesitant to directly challenge the state government in court.

Supreme Court’s Initial Remarks

CJI Surya Kant noted that the UPSC is expected to strictly enforce compliance with Supreme Court directives and act in accordance with establishing guidelines if an ineligible panel is presented.