The DMK, which is in power in Tamil Nadu, has accused the Election Commission of India of discriminatory treatment in its order appointing a state police chief and has asked the ECI to issue a corrigendum, calling the order “illegal” and “void.”
In a letter dated April 15, DMK treasurer TR Baalu urged the ECI to withdraw its order appointing a state police chief, citing various Supreme Court rulings regarding the procedure, particularly in cases of disputes.
The ECI had, on April 2, appointed Sandeep Rai Rathore as the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force.
Baalu said that the ECI has no power to appoint a Head of Police Force, citing the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in the Prakash Singh v. Union of India case. The SC had said that the Director General of Police of a state should be selected by the state government from among the three senior-most officers empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
He also cited other Supreme Court orders from 2018 and 2019, which directed that states must recommend names to the UPSC at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent officer, and that, along with considerations of seniority and merit, the names of officers recommended to the UPSC should have at least six months of tenure prior to their retirement.
Baalu said that the appointment of a new state police chief, after IPS officer Shankar Jiwal retired on August 31, 2025, as the head of the Tamil Nadu police, was held up due to disputes with the UPSC, which eventually reached the Supreme Court.
The Tamil Nadu government disagreed with the UPSC on the “qualification” rules and, in a bid to seek a solution, called for the constitution of a fresh empanelment committee to recommend names for the appointment. However, the acting DGP, a member of the committee, was also an aspirant for the post and therefore had to be substituted.
On February 12, 2026, the Supreme Court stepped in and permitted the state to nominate a substitute for the acting DGP and directed that an officer of an equivalent rank be nominated as a substitute member on the UPSC Selection Board. The court also ordered a meeting on March 20, 2026, to finally choose an officer. Baalu alleged that, despite the court's direction, the meeting on March 20 did not take place.
Baalu said that if the ECI had concerns regarding the conduct of free and fair elections, it had the power to appoint a state police chief of its choosing to maintain neutrality and take control of law and order and security arrangements during elections.
However, such an appointment would only be valid until the completion of elections. Baalu then went on to accuse the ECI of discrimination, noting that its order appointing a state police chief for the West Bengal Assembly elections clearly mentioned that the appointment was temporary.
He then urged the ECI to issue a corrigendum to its April 2 order, stating that Sandeep Rai Rathore would only be in charge until the completion of elections, to avoid being in contempt of Supreme Court orders.