Today, the Supreme Court held that it would hear petitions in May regarding the implementation of its 2006 judgment on police reforms, which proposed measures such as separating investigation functions from law and order duties.

The 2006 ruling also included several directives, notably barring state governments from making ad hoc or interim appointments to the post of Director General of Police (DGP).

As per the verdict, the Union Public Service Commission, in consultation with the respective state government and other stakeholders, must prepare a panel of three senior police officers, from which the state can appoint one as the DGP.

During the hearing, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Dushyant Dave informed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan that multiple state governments were violating the court's guidelines.

"There has been rampant corruption in the appointment of police chiefs... rampant," Bhushan said.

"State after state is refusing to comply with the judgment & directions," Dave alleged, adding if these reformatory directions are not implemented then "we will lose everything for which we stand".

He warned that a grave situation is unfolding, with nearly every second state bypassing legal procedures in the appointment of Directors General of Police (DGPs).  

Taking note of the concern, the bench directed that a contempt petition be served on the Jharkhand government and scheduled all related pleas for hearing in the week beginning May 5.  

Earlier, advocate Prashant Bhushan referred to the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in the Prakash Singh case, highlighting its recommendation to separate police functions—investigation and law and order. He emphasized that maintaining law and order is an executive function, while investigation falls under the criminal justice system.  

In its 2006 judgment on the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and N.K. Singh, the Supreme Court issued several key directives. It mandated a fixed two-year tenure for state police chiefs and stressed that the appointment of DGPs and other police officers should be based on merit and transparency.  

The court also directed the establishment of a State Security Commission to prevent undue government interference in police operations. Additionally, it ordered the creation of a Police Establishment Board to oversee transfers, postings, promotions, and service-related matters of officers up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).  

To ensure accountability, the court called for a Police Complaints Authority in each state to investigate complaints against senior police officers in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial deaths, grievous injury, and custodial rape.  

At the national level, the Supreme Court mandated the formation of a National Security Commission to prepare a panel for selecting and appointing chiefs of Central Police Organisations, ensuring they serve a minimum tenure of two years.