On May 31, the Uttar Pradesh government appointed Rajeev Krishna, a 1991-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, as the state’s new acting Director General of Police (DGP). Krishna replaced Prashant Kumar and became the fifth consecutive officer to hold the post in an officiating capacity – a pattern that has drawn intense criticism from the opposition and former officers alike.

Krishna, who hails from Gautam Buddha Nagar and holds a degree in Electronics and Communication, was already serving as Director General of Vigilance and the Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. His elevation to acting DGP continues a trend that began in May 2022, when Devendra Singh Chauhan took charge after Mukul Goel’s removal. Chauhan was followed by R.K. Vishwakarma, Vijay Kumar, and Prashant Kumar – all of whom served without being given a permanent mandate.

Opposition criticism mounts

The opposition has raised serious concerns over the absence of a full-time police chief in India’s most populous state. Uttar Pradesh, with over 220 million people, has seen high-profile law and order challenges in recent years. Critics argue that the continued appointment of acting DGPs undermines institutional accountability and weakens leadership within the police force.

Ajay Rai, President of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee, accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of evading responsibility.

“It’s a mockery of law and order and a threat to the security of 220 million people,” Rai told The Wire. “There have been custodial deaths and deteriorating law and order, yet the state is being led by acting officials – not just the DGP, but even the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath appears to be ‘acting’,” Rai added.

The Samajwadi Party (SP) also condemned the move. SP’s Member of Legislative Council, Ashutosh Sinha, said, “This reflects how seriously the BJP government and Chief Minister Yogi take crime and governance. Their actions show bias, and they are unwilling to follow constitutional norms.”

Sinha further criticised the pattern of short-term appointments, arguing that it hampers administrative efficiency.

“When someone is appointed for a short time to the most crucial post in the police department, they spend that time just understanding the system. By the time they are ready to act, their tenure ends,” he said.

A dispute between Centre and state?

The controversy has reignited debates over the relationship between the Uttar Pradesh government and the BJP-led central government. Prashant Kumar, who was widely expected to receive an extension, was reportedly Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s preferred candidate. However, the central government did not approve the extension.

Political analysts believe that this deadlock reflects a lack of consensus between the Centre and the state on key appointments.

“The appointment of Krishna as acting DGP reflects that there is some rift between CM Yogi and his party’s central leadership, which is why the UP CM has been avoiding the appointment of a permanent DGP,” said Utkarsh Sinha, a political analyst who has observed governance in the state for decades.

Sinha added that such indecision is not limited to the police department. Earlier, this government had delayed appointments for other crucial posts like the Chief Secretary. It suggests that the government often functions at its convenience, sidelining due process,” he said.

Kumar Bhawesh Chandra, another political commentator, echoed the sentiment. “For the last three years, Uttar Pradesh has had no permanent police chief. The CM doesn’t want someone he cannot control. If the Centre appoints a DGP he doesn’t prefer, removing that officer would become politically complicated,” Chandra said.

'A permanent DGP is essential to maintain the authority and integrity of the forces'

Former DGP Sulkhan Singh emphasised the importance of stable leadership in policing. “The DGP is the leader of the police department, and a permanent DGP is essential to maintain the authority and integrity of the force,” Singh said.

He added that state governments often prefer appointing acting DGPs because it gives them flexibility. “They can extend or terminate the tenure of acting officials based on political expediency,” Singh said.

Former IPS officer S.R. Darapuri agreed that the system suffers when key positions are filled temporarily.

“Acting officers tend to avoid making bold or sensitive decisions. Their short tenures discourage them from implementing major reforms,” he said.

“Governments avoid appointing permanent DGPs because, as per regulations, a full-time DGP cannot be removed for two years without solid justification. This security of tenure limits political interference,” added Darapuri.

He also highlighted the lack of seriousness with which field-level officers treat acting DGPs.

“Sometimes district-level officers do not take acting DGPs seriously, leading to dysfunction across the force,” Darapuri noted.

Legal experts sound the alarm

The legal implications of repeated acting appointments are also under scrutiny. Advocate Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi pointed to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), which laid down strict guidelines for police reforms.

“The appointment of yet another officiating DGP in Uttar Pradesh compels a serious reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1,” Rizvi said. “That judgment laid down clear and binding norms for the appointment of the DGP – including empanelment by the UPSC and a minimum two-year tenure – to insulate the police from political manipulation.”

He added, “Despite claims that the 2024 Rules implement these directives, the exclusion of UPSC from the process and the continuation of officiating appointments indicate a clear circumvention of the court’s mandate. If challenged, such actions may not stand judicial scrutiny, as they violate principles of transparency, independence, and reasonableness enshrined in the judgment.”

The 2024 rules: More clarity or confusion?

In November 2024, the Uttar Pradesh government approved the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh Selection and Appointment Rules, 2024. These rules introduced a new selection process allegedly intended to replace the earlier practice of UPSC-based recommendations.

Under the revised system, a selection committee chaired by a retired high court judge now oversees the appointment. Other members include the state’s chief secretary, a UPSC nominee, a representative from the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, the Home Department secretary, and a retired DGP.

The new mechanism, the government claims, is designed to reduce political interference and streamline the process. However, critics argue that bypassing UPSC and continuing to appoint acting officials contradicts the stated goals.

“There were multiple senior IPS officers in contention this time, including one woman officer. This raised hopes that UP could see its first-ever female police chief. But once again, the UP government bypassed all of them in favour of someone seen as close to the political galleries,” said an opposition leader.

The road ahead

Rajeev Krishna is expected to remain in charge until March 2026, according to sources. By then, several senior officers will have retired, potentially making him fourth in the seniority list – a position that could strengthen his candidacy for permanent appointment.

Whether Krishna ultimately secures that position remains to be seen. But the larger issue persists: Why has Uttar Pradesh, one of the most politically significant and crime-sensitive states in India, failed to appoint a full-time DGP for nearly three years?

Until the state resolves this administrative limbo, questions around governance, legal compliance, and political motivations will continue to cast a shadow over the functioning of its law enforcement machinery.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.