Friday, 2 October 2026
Contact the desk
The Legal Alpha

Legal news and analysis

National

Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs State to End Ad-Hoc Leadership and Expedite Regular DGP Appointment

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 1 October 2026 · 5 min read
Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs State to End Ad-Hoc Leadership and Expedite Regular DGP Appointment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has instructed the Punjab Government to expedite the appointment of a permanent Director General of Police (DGP) and put an end to years of ad-hoc leadership at the helm of the state police.

Hearing a public interest litigation challenging the prolonged use of an "additional charge" arrangement to lead the police department, the Court directed the state administration to fall in line with Supreme Court guidelines. The Punjab Chief Secretary has now been directed to submit a sworn compliance affidavit detailing the administration’s progress by October 13, 2026.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Constitutional Law / Administrative & Service Jurisprudence

Sub-topic: Police Governance, Tenure Protection, and Head of Police Force Appointments

Core Legal Issue

The petition brings forward whether a state government can bypass the mandatory selection process and tenure safeguards established by the Supreme Court by retaining an officer on an "additional charge" or ad-hoc basis for years.

At stake is the institutional autonomy of the police leadership: while states retain broad executive authority over administrative postings, judicial precedents require an independent empanelment mechanism through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and a guaranteed minimum tenure to insulate the police chief from political pressure.

What Did the Court Decide?

The High Court directed the State of Punjab to take active steps to finalize the regular appointment of the DGP in accordance with the Supreme Court's binding directives.

Taking note of the state’s submission that a panel of eligible officers forwarded by the UPSC is currently under active government consideration, the Court declined to allow open-ended administrative delays. The Bench ordered the Chief Secretary to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit by October 13, 2026, keeping judicial oversight active until concrete steps are shown.

Key Legal Points

  • Binding Character of Apex Court Norms: State governments must adhere to the institutional selection process established by the Supreme Court for appointing the state police chief, rather than resorting to unilateral stop-gap arrangements.

  • Prolonged Interim Leadership Disapproved: Operating the office of the DGP under an "additional charge" arrangement for multiple years contradicts the constitutional intent of temporary, emergency-only appointments.

  • Tenure Security as an Institutional Shield: A permanent appointment backed by an assured two-year minimum tenure is critical to ensuring operational stability and neutral decision-making in the police force.

  • Judicial Enforcement Through Compliance Deadlines: The High Court exercised active oversight by requiring the state's top bureaucrat—the Chief Secretary—to place official compliance on record within a defined timeframe.

Relevant Law

  • Supreme Court Directives in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 1: Established that state police chiefs must be chosen from a UPSC-recommended panel and guaranteed a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of their superannuation date.

  • Supreme Court Order in Prakash Singh (2019) 4 SCC 13: Reaffirmed the requirement for UPSC empanelment and restrained states from appointing "acting" DGPs to circumvent established guidelines.

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the High Court to issue directions to state authorities for the enforcement of constitutional mandates and the rule of law.

  • Punjab Police Act, 2007: Governing statutory framework regulating the structure, administration, and tenure of the state police force.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner

The petitioner, Advocate Nikhil Thamman, submitted that Punjab has not had a regular, substantive DGP for over four years, with the highest office in the state police force remaining an "additional charge" assignment. Counsel argued that prolonged reliance on a temporary leadership structure deprives the officer of statutory security of tenure, leaving the leadership vulnerable to executive discretion and weakening institutional independence. The petitioner further pointed out that while the UPSC had already sent an empanelled list of eligible officers, the state administration had sat on the recommendations rather than completing the appointment.

State of Punjab

Representing the State, Additional Advocate General Chanchal K. Singla submitted that the government was not evading its obligations and that the selection process was moving forward. The State informed the Bench that the empanelled list submitted by the UPSC is currently under active consideration by the competent authority. State counsel also highlighted that the Supreme Court was already seized of the wider compliance issue, placing the state's previous compliance submissions before the High Court to demonstrate good faith.

Why Does It Matter?

Across several Indian states, executive administrations have increasingly relied on "acting" or "additional charge" police chiefs as an administrative workaround. This pattern circumvents the UPSC screening process and avoids granting the fixed, two-year tenure mandated by the Supreme Court—leaving police chiefs vulnerable to sudden removal or executive pressure.

By setting a firm deadline for the Chief Secretary's compliance affidavit, the High Court has reinforced that prolonged ad-hocism at the apex of law enforcement will not receive judicial sanction. The case emphasizes that institutional stability and an assured tenure are indispensable prerequisites for independent policing and public confidence.

Legal Takeaway

Interim or additional-charge arrangements cannot serve as an indefinite substitute for a regular police chief. State governments remain legally bound to select their DGP from a UPSC-approved panel and provide the mandatory two-year tenure protection mandated by the Supreme Court.

Sources

  • Primary Source: Order and judicial proceedings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nikhil Thamman v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP(PIL)-252-2026), dated October 1, 2026.

  • Additional Sources: Supreme Court directives in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (2006, 2019); submissions on record before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Related reporting