Court Grants Additional Time Amid Allegations of Unconstitutional Move; Next Hearing on July 15
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has granted additional time to the State Government, the Central Government, and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to submit their responses regarding the controversial appointment of 1990-batch IPS officer Anurag Gupta as the Director General of Police (DGP). The appointment has come under legal scrutiny following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Leader of Opposition Babulal Marandi.
PIL Alleges Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines
In his petition, Marandi has alleged that the appointment of Gupta violates the Supreme Court’s established guidelines on DGP appointments, primarily due to the state government’s failure to involve the UPSC—a mandatory requirement under previous court directives.
According to the PIL
The Jharkhand government framed new rules in 2025 and allegedly applied them retrospectively to validate Anurag Gupta’s extension.
Gupta was originally set to retire in April 2025, but the revised rules allegedly enabled the state to continue his tenure.
Marandi argues that the move was politically motivated, aimed at retaining control over the police force.
He has further accused the government of misusing the police machinery for political purposes.
High Court Acknowledges Pending SC Proceedings but Seeks Interim Replies
During the hearing, the Advocate General informed the division bench—comprising Chief Justice S. Ramchandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan—that a related matter is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. In light of this, the High Court deferred the case but insisted that all respondents must file their replies in the meantime.
The bench emphasized that the existence of proceedings in the apex court does not exempt the respondents from clarifying their stance in the current PIL.
Contempt Petition Filed in Supreme Court
Meanwhile, Marandi has also approached the Supreme Court with a contempt petition, challenging the constitutional validity of the newly introduced state rules under which Gupta’s appointment was made. He contends that these rules are in direct violation of binding Supreme Court judgments and represent a deliberate attempt by the government to sidestep legal procedures.
The next hearing in the Jharkhand High Court is scheduled for July 15, and the matter is being closely watched given its implications for police reforms and federal oversight in key appointments.
