HC to TG Govt: Have You Followed SC’s Rules To Pick DGP?

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday questioned the state government about why it had not complied with the binding directions of the Supreme Court regarding the appointment of a full-time Director General of Police. The court also cautioned the state government that it would issue appropriate orders if there was non-compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines in the appointment of the DGP.

Hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of B. Shivadhar Reddy as full additional charge DGP, Justice Pulla Karthik directed the state government to explain its stand by December 22, as to whether it had adhered to the mandate laid down by the apex court.

The petition was filed by an advocate T. Dhangopal Rao, challenging the GO No. 1339 dated September 26, 2025, through which Shivadhar Reddy was appointed as FAC of DGP (HoPF), contending that the appointment was made in blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh vs Union of India.

According to the petitioner, the apex court had categorically ruled that no state government will appoint an acting or temporary DGP and that a panel of eligible senior-most IPS officers must be sent to the Union Public Service Commission at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP for the selection of a permanent head of police.

On Thursday, appearing as a party in person, he argued that the Telangana government had failed to send any such panel to the UPSC and, to substantiate his claim, relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the UPSC, which stated that no empanelment committee meeting had been held for the post of DGP (HoPF) in Telangana.

He argued that this demonstrated a deliberate bypassing of the legally-mandated process and sought suspension of the impugned Government Order and issuance of a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment. He further urged the court to declare the Telangana Police (Selection and Appointment of DGP (HoPF)) Act, 2018, as colourable legislation, contending that it runs contrary to the binding directions of the Supreme Court.

Acknowledging the issue prima facie, Justice Pulla Karthik repeatedly emphasised the binding nature of Supreme Court orders and observed that such directions are “the same for everyone.”

The judge pointedly asked the state whether it had complied with the apex court’s mandate, remarking, “First comply with the Supreme Court’s order. Whether those guidelines are binding on the state or not?” The court indicated that compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions was not optional and required a clear explanation from the government.

However, Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy, appearing for the state government, informed the court that a panel of senior-most IPS officers had indeed been forwarded to the UPSC in the past.

He stated that the UPSC had sought certain clarifications and that the process was complicated by the retirement of some officers included in the panel during the interregnum.

The Advocate General also contended that several subsequent orders had been passed by the Supreme Court after the Prakash Singh judgment and argued that a writ of quo warranto was not maintainable in the present case.

According to him, if there was any violation of the Supreme Court directions, the appropriate remedy would be to approach the Supreme Court by way of contempt proceedings. He sought time to obtain instructions and file a detailed counter-affidavit.

The court gave time till December 22 for the Advocate-General to obtain written instructions on record, specifically addressing whether the Supreme Court’s directions had been complied with in the appointment of the present DGP.