Overview The Supreme Court on 12 March 2026 observed that forming a collegium of the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a minister to select the DGP is not workable. The observation was made by a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant while hearing a petition to modify the Prakash Singh judgment. Key Developments The Court rejected the proposal of a three‑member collegium (Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition, minister) for DGP appointments. It emphasized the need for a central authority —the UPSC —to prepare an objective panel of eligible officers. Senior Advocate Ramu Ramachandran argued that while UPSC can shortlist, the final decision should rest with the state government as the DGP is a “post of confidence”. The Court adjourned the matter due to the absence of counsel Advocate Prashant Bhushan . Important Facts from the 2006 Direction According to the 2006 direction in the Prakash Singh case, the DGP of a state shall be selected by the State Government from among the three senior‑most officers who have been empanelled for promotion by the UPSC . UPSC Relevance for UPSC Aspirants Understanding the role of the UPSC in police appointments is crucial for both GS II (Polity) and GS III (Security) . The judgment underscores the principle of merit‑based selection, limiting political interference, which aligns with the broader theme of police reforms and good governance. Way Forward While the Court has not altered the 2006 framework, it signalled that any future amendment must preserve the UPSC’s central role in ensuring objectivity. States may continue to choose from the UPSC‑prepared panel, but a formal collegium involving political leaders is unlikely to be accepted by the judiciary. Aspirants should monitor any legislative attempts to modify the selection process, as they will have implications for federal‑state relations and administrative reforms.