By Our Correspondent
BHUBANESWAR: On 7 September 2026, the matter concerning the appointment/selection process for Odisha’s next Director General of Police was taken up. The Amicus Curiae , senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, has filed a report/written submissions.
Learned Solicitor General appearing for the State of Odishaa sought time to examine the Amicus report and to place notes on record in that regard. The Court granted the request and directed the matter to be listed after one week till 16 September.
This continues the ongoing scrutiny of the panel/proposal sent by the Odisha government to the UPSC, allegations of non-compliance with the Prakash Singh guidelines including issues around seniority, promotions, and eligibility of officers, and related interlocutory applications. Interim directions restraining finalisation of the panel by UPSC) have continued in the matter so far.
The Solicitor General or any party can fully counter, rebut, or respond to an Amicus Curiae report. An Amicus Curiae is appointed to assist the Court with independent views, analysis, or factual inputs. Their report or written submissions are advisory, not binding, and do not have the force of a judicial order.The Court is free to accept, reject, or partially rely on the Amicus’s views after hearing all sides.
Parties including the State of Odisha, represented by the Solicitor General have a full right of reply.
In the present Odisha DGP matter, the Solicitor General has already sought (and been granted) time specifically “to examine the report filed by the Amicus, and to put on record the notes in that respect.” That is the normal procedural step for a counter.
Courts routinely grant such time and then hear the matter after the response is on record. An Amicus report is not “overpowered” in any legal sense — it carries persuasive value only to the extent the Court finds it helpful after considering the parties’ replies. The next listing (16 September) is precisely for this process to play out.
If the Solicitor General’s counter does not convince the Court, several outcomes are possible:The Court may accept the concerns raised in the Amicus Curiae’s report (or parts of it).
It can continue or strengthen the existing interim directions — for example, by directing the UPSC not to finalise the panel until further orders.The Court may ask the State of Odisha to:File a fresh or revised proposal/list of eligible officers that strictly follows the Prakash Singh guidelines.Exclude certain officers (if the Court finds their inclusion improper).
Provide additional documents or clarifications (e.g., on integrity certificates, seniority, or promotion dates).
In a stronger scenario, the Court could set aside the current proposal and direct a fresh process in accordance with the 2006 guidelines and subsequent orders.
The petitioner’s challenge would then succeed (fully or partly), and the selection process would remain under Court supervision for longer.
The appointment of a regular DGP for Odisha would be further delayed. The present interim arrangement (additional charge with a senior officer) would continue until the Court is satisfied that the process is compliant.
. The final result depends entirely on how the judges evaluate the Amicus report, the State’s response, and the overall record.
What the Supreme Court is exactly examining in the Odisha DGP case
The case is part of the long-running Prakash Singh police reforms matter (Writ Petition (C) No. 310 of 1996). The Court is scrutinising the process followed by the Odisha government for selecting the next Director General of Police.
Core issues before the Court-Compliance with Prakash Singh guidelines (2006)Whether the State prepared and sent the list of eligible officers to the UPSC strictly as per the
Supreme Court’s directions. Key requirements include: Only officers of the rank of DGP (or equivalent) with the prescribed residual service. Consideration based on service record, experience, and merit. No political or extraneous influence in the panel.
Composition of the panel/list sent to UPSC
Allegations that the State included comparatively junior officers after promoting them to DGP rank just before sending a fresh list.Questions over whether certain senior officers were properly considered or excluded.Specific concerns about integrity certificates and eligibility of individual officers (including intervention applications by officers claiming exclusion).
Amicus Curiae’s report. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran (Amicus) has filed a report/written submissions raising questions on the procedure followed for empanelment. The Court is examining these observations.
The Solicitor General has been given time to examine the Amicus report and place notes on record. The Court will test whether Odisha’s explanation satisfactorily answers the concerns.
Interim restraint UPSC has been restrained from finalising the panel until the Court examines the above issues.
The Court is not deciding who should become DGP. It is deciding whether the process used by Odisha to prepare the list for UPSC is legal and in accordance with its earlier binding directions. Next hearing is fixed for 16 September 2026, when the State’s counter to the Amicus report will be considered.
The Odisha government expanded or revised the list of officers sent to the UPSC after promoting certain officers to DGP rank shortly before the process. This allegedly allowed comparatively junior officers into the pool in a way that does not fully comply with the Prakash Singh (2006) guidelines on eligibility, residual service, seniority, and transparent empanelment. Specific issues raised include integrity certificates, exclusion of some senior officers, and whether the process was altered to favour particular names.
The Amicus Curiae has placed written submissions highlighting procedural questions. The Court is treating these seriously enough to seek the State’s detailed response.
State of Odisha’s position (presented by the Solicitor General)
Promotions of IPS officers to DGP rank are part of the normal administrative process and within the State’s powers.The officers included in the proposal fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria under the Prakash Singh directions.
The State is entitled to send a fresh or revised list to the UPSC consisting of officers who meet the rank and residual-service requirements. It has already filed its counter-affidavit and has been given time to specifically examine and reply to the Amicus report with notes on record.
If the Solicitor General’s response (notes/counter-affidavit) to the Amicus Curiae’s report convinces the Court on the merits, the Supreme Court can:
Accept Odisha’s stand that its proposal/panel to the UPSC complies with the Prakash Singh guidelines.
Reject or dismiss the petitioner’s challenge (or the connected interlocutory applications seeking to restrain the process).
Vacate or modify the existing interim directions so that the UPSC can proceed with empanelment.
How this works in practice. The Amicus report is only assistance to the Court. It is not binding.
Once the SG places a detailed counter on record (as already permitted), the Bench will hear arguments from:, The petitioner, The State of Odisha (SG), The Amicus, UPSC (if necessary)
The Court decides after examining: Whether the State followed the prescribed procedure for preparing the list of eligible officers. Whether any officer was improperly included or excluded. The overall compliance with the 2006 Prakash Singh directions and subsequent orders.
If the Court finds the State’s explanation satisfactory and the Amicus’s concerns adequately answered, the petition can be rejected and the selection process allowed to move forward.
The matter is listed for 16 September. The outcome will depend entirely on how the Bench evaluates the material and arguments that day or on subsequent dates.
The Court will decide after evaluating the State’s detailed response to the Amicus report and hearing full arguments. Until then, it is not possible to say the State is right or the petitioner is right — that is exactly what the 16 September hearing is meant to clarify.
In the Prakash Singh case (or any Supreme Court matter), the Solicitor General does not have more power than the Amicus Curiae.
The Supreme Court Bench has the only real power. It decides after hearing everyone. The Amicus report carries persuasive value because the Court itself asked for it.
The SG has the full right to counter and rebut that report (which is exactly what has been permitted in the Odisha matter — time was granted to examine the report and place notes on record).
Neither the SG nor the Amicus can overrule or overpower the other. The judges evaluate both. The SG can strongly and effectively counter the Amicus (and is doing so), but neither has superior “power.” The Court alone decides whose arguments, if any, it accepts.
