Amicus in Supreme Court Questions Empanelment Procedure for Odisha DGP Appointment
The Supreme Court is examining serious questions surrounding the procedure followed for selecting Odisha’s next Director General of Police, with Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran raising concerns over the empanelment process, changes in the eligibility list and the treatment of senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath. The matter was heard on September 7 by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.
The Court has now deferred the matter to September 16, giving the parties additional time to respond to the submissions made by the amicus. The proceedings assume importance because the appointment process is being tested against the Supreme Court’s directions in the landmark Prakash Singh v. Union of India police-reforms case.
At the centre of the controversy is the question whether Odisha altered the pool of officers eligible for consideration after the original eligibility list had already been forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission. The amicus has questioned the circumstances in which two Additional DGP-rank officers subsequently became part of the zone of consideration.
According to the amicus’s submissions, Odisha created temporary ex-cadre DGP posts shortly before the appointment exercise. This development enabled two Additional DGPs to become eligible for consideration even though the original eligibility list had already been submitted to the UPSC on May 14, 2026.
The timing of these changes has become a central issue before the Supreme Court. The amicus has suggested that the Empanelment Committee should consider the original eligibility list rather than the subsequently updated list, arguing that this would protect the process from possible manipulation and preserve transparency in the selection of the State’s police chief.
Another issue concerns the service particulars of IPS officer Sanjeeb Panda. The amicus has pointed to an apparent discrepancy between the years of service attributed to Panda in different documents and has sought an explanation from the Odisha government regarding the conflicting figures.
The amicus has also questioned the withholding of the integrity certificate of Sushant Kumar Nath, one of the senior officers whose candidature had figured in the earlier selection process. The submission seeks an affidavit from the State explaining why the certificate was withheld and whether the decision was supported by relevant material and proper application of mind.
The issue is particularly significant because integrity certification forms part of the mechanism through which officers are assessed for empanelment. The question before the Court is therefore not merely whether an individual officer should be considered, but whether the State followed a consistent and legally defensible procedure while determining who could enter the selection zone.
The dispute originated with a challenge to Odisha’s attempt to expand the field of officers considered for appointment as DGP. The petitioners have alleged that the State’s approach could enable a relatively junior officer to enter the process contrary to the Supreme Court’s established framework requiring consideration of the senior-most eligible officers.
The controversy gained urgency after Odisha initially forwarded a smaller group of senior DG-rank officers to the UPSC and subsequently expanded the pool. Earlier proceedings recorded that the State had initially sent three DG-rank officers before the consideration was broadened to include several Additional DG-rank officers.
The subsequent promotion of Sanjeeb Panda and YK Jethwa to DG rank on August 10 also became relevant to the litigation because their names entered the selection equation after the original process had begun. The amicus has specifically questioned the circumstances surrounding these developments.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is rooted in its long-standing directions on appointment of State police chiefs. Under the Prakash Singh framework, the UPSC is required to empanel eligible officers and prepare a panel from which the State government selects its DGP. The objective is to ensure that appointment to the highest police post is insulated from political or other external pressures.
The Court has previously issued further directions to prevent States from circumventing this mechanism. The prescribed procedure requires the selection process to be initiated sufficiently in advance of the incumbent DGP’s retirement and seeks to ensure that the appointment is based on objective eligibility, service record and experience rather than executive preference.
The present proceedings therefore raise a broader institutional question: whether administrative changes made immediately before or during an empanelment exercise can alter the pool of eligible officers after the selection machinery has already been activated.
The State, however, has maintained that the promotions were part of its administrative powers and has disputed allegations that the DGP selection procedure was manipulated. Odisha has also questioned aspects of the maintainability of the PIL, while the Union government has sought time to respond to the latest submissions.
The intervention of Sushant Kumar Nath has added another dimension to the case. Nath has approached the Supreme Court seeking to participate in the proceedings as an affected officer, contending that the outcome could directly affect his prospects in the DGP selection process.
The Supreme Court’s September 16 hearing could consequently become important in determining whether the existing empanelment exercise can proceed on the revised list or whether the selection process must revert to the original eligibility position.
At stake is not merely the appointment of Odisha’s next police chief. The case could clarify the limits of a State government’s ability to modify the eligibility landscape during an ongoing DGP selection exercise and reinforce the safeguards established by the Supreme Court to ensure an independent, transparent and merit-based police leadership appointment.
