By Our Correspondent
NEW DELHI/BHUBANESWAR: The developments in the Supreme Court matter on Odisha’s DGP selection linked to the long-running Prakash Singh police reforms guidelines do not currently favour an easy path for the Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi government to push a revised panel that includes the last-minute promotees. The concerns raised by Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran, the arguments by senior advocate P. Chidambaram for the petitioner, and the intervention/submissions from former IPS officer Yashovardhan Jha Azad all point the other way.
Odisha initially sent names (including senior DG-rank officers such as Sudhanshu Sarangi, Sushant Kumar Nath and R.P. Koche) to the UPSC around May 2026. The process later stalled/was altered after issues around an integrity certificate (particularly relating to Nath) and withdrawal of the proposal.
On 10 August 2026, two 1994-batch ADGPs (Sanjeeb Panda and Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa) were promoted to DG rank. Petitioners alleged this expanded the pool after the original list and after the matter had already been flagged, amounting to an attempt to bring in relatively junior officers in violation of Prakash Singh norms (selection from a UPSC-empanelled panel of senior officers based on length of service, record and experience, insulated from external pressures).
Chidambaram for the petitioner) pressed the urgency, highlighting the timing of the promotions including after the matter was mentioned in court and the risk of circumvention. The Court took note, restrained finalisation by UPSC, and listed the matter.
Amicus Raju Ramachandran assisting the Court in the Prakash Singh continuum has questioned the empanelment procedure in written submissions. He flagged last-minute promotions, creation of temporary/ex-cadre DGP posts after the original May list had gone to UPSC, alteration of the eligibility list, an unexplained service-year issue, and withholding of an eligible officer’s integrity certificate. He has urged that the process should proceed on the basis of the original May 14 eligibility list to insulate the appointment from subsequent administrative changes whose justification is under scrutiny
Yashovardhan Jha Azad (retired IPS, former Special Director IB / Secretary Security / CIC) has intervened/supported the challenge. He has publicly described the sequence as a clear violation of SC directives: original names sent, integrity certificate issue used to withdraw the panel, then new names added and promotions effected to favour a preferred outcome. He has argued the May panel should stand so that police-reform guidelines are not reduced to a formality.
The Court bench headed by CJI Surya Kant has repeatedly deferred substantive progress most recently adjourning to 16 September 2026), directed the UPSC not to finalise meanwhile, recorded state and UPSC responses, and specifically asked the Odisha government to file a special affidavit explaining the position of the three officers from the original list (especially the integrity-certificate issue relating to Nath. Sushant Kumar Nath has also sought impleadment as an affected party. An acting arrangement (Vinaytosh Mishra) continues.
The Odisha government appearing through the Advocate General Pitambar Acharya and with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also involved for the state/Centre side has defended the actions as routine administrative promotions and asserted its ability to send a fresh proposal of officers who meet rank/eligibility requirements. Counter affidavits have been filed; further response time has been sought.
However, this is not currently looking like a strong rescue for the government’s preferred revised list, for these reasons visible in the record: The Amicus has already placed a critical report focused on the post-May changes and recommended sticking to the original eligibility list.
The Court is examining compliance with Prakash Singh (which emphasises a transparent, insulated process from the senior-most eligible officers) and has specifically ordered a detailed state affidavit on the original-list officers and the integrity-certificate withholding.
Timing of the promotions (after the original proposal and after judicial attention) and the temporary-post creation have drawn explicit scrutiny; “backdoor entry” concerns were noted early. An affected senior officer (Nath) is now before the Court, and Azad’s intervention reinforces the procedural-integrity argument.
A well-drafted rejoinder/special affidavit can attempt to justify the promotions as pure cadre management, explain the integrity-certificate decision with contemporaneous records, and argue that the state retains flexibility to propose eligible officers. But on the material so far reported, the weight of the Amicus submissions, the petitioner’s case, and the Court’s directions make it difficult for the government to simply proceed with the altered list without further judicial approval or correction. The next hearing (16 September) will test whatever additional material the state places on record.
In short, the concerns many noted from the Amicus, Chidambaram and Azad accurately reflect the current judicial posture: the process is under active scrutiny for adherence to the Prakash Singh framework, and the last-minute alterations are the central problem the state must now address convincingly.
Yes, a well-drafted rejoinder or special affidavit from the Odisha government through the Advocate General and with support from the Solicitor General can still attempt to persuade the Supreme Court — but it faces a high bar and is not guaranteed to succeed if the Court views the sequence as a clear departure from Prakash Singh guidelines.
Supreme Court proceedings in such matters are not purely adversarial in a rigid sense. The Court (especially a bench led by the CJI in the continuing Prakash Singh framework) examines the full record, including: The state’s contemporaneous records and explanations.
Whether any administrative action had a bona fide, non-arbitrary justification. Proportionality and the need to insulate DGP selection from external pressures.
The Court has already directed Odisha to file a special affidavit specifically explaining the position of the three officers from the original May 2026 eligibility list (Sudhanshu Sarangi, Sushant Kumar Nath and R.P. Koche), with particular focus on the integrity-certificate issue relating to Nath. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has sought (and been granted) time to respond to Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s report. A carefully prepared response can therefore still place material on record that was not fully available earlier.
Provide detailed, document-backed reasons for withholding or issues with the integrity certificate (showing it was not a post-hoc device to drop an officer). Justify the promotions of the two ADGPs and any temporary/ex-cadre posts as routine cadre management with prior approvals, rather than a targeted expansion of the pool after the original proposal had gone to UPSC.
Argue that the state retains the flexibility to send a revised proposal of officers who meet the rank and eligibility criteria once the process is regularised.Address the Amicus’s suggestion that the process should revert to the original May 14 list.
If the explanation is transparent, supported by contemporaneous notes/files, and demonstrates that no “backdoor” preference was engineered, the Court could accept it in whole or in part, or mould relief accordingly (for example, by directing a fresh, time-bound process strictly on the original eligible pool or with limited additional names).
The current record already contains strong counter-material:Amicus Raju Ramachandran has flagged last-minute promotions, creation of temporary DGP-rank posts after the May list, alteration of the eligibility list, and the integrity-certificate issue. He has recommended proceeding on the original May list to protect the integrity of the process.
Chidambaram (for the petitioner) has emphasised the timing — promotions occurring after the matter was already under the Court’s attention — and the risk of circumventing the Prakash Singh safeguards. Yashovardhan Jha Azad’s intervention reinforces the view that the original panel should stand and that the subsequent changes undermine the guidelines.
An affected senior officer (Sushant Kumar Nath) has sought impleadment, adding another voice that will scrutinise the state’s explanation of his exclusion.
Courts give significant weight to an Amicus report in institutional matters of this kind. If the Court concludes that the post-May changes were designed to alter the zone of consideration in a manner inconsistent with the 2006 judgment and subsequent directions (selection from senior-most officers empanelled by UPSC on the basis of length of service, record and experience, free from external influence), a skilfully worded affidavit alone may not overcome that finding. The Court can still direct that the original list be restored, restrain further alterations, or lay down tighter procedural safeguards.
A weak or evasive affidavit will almost certainly hurt the state’s position.A thorough, document-supported one gives the AG/SG a real opportunity to narrow the issues, seek clarification rather than outright rejection of the state’s actions, or propose a compliant way forward.Ultimate persuasion depends on the Court’s assessment of whether any “clear violation” is made out on the facts and whether the state’s explanation cures the procedural defect.
In short, the AG and SG can still make a serious attempt through a well-drafted rejoinder/special affidavit — the Court has left that window open by calling for it and granting time. But given the Amicus’s critical report, the timing of the promotions, and the institutional importance of Prakash Singh, success is far from assured. The September 16 hearing will turn heavily on the quality and candour of whatever material the state now places on record.
