NEW DELHI: From an early controversy over his wife’s alleged fake degree to multiple Election Commission rebukes and a disputed elevation to Jharkhand’s top police post, IPS officer Anurag Gupta’s career has been shadowed by scandal and buoyed by political protection.
Now, with his post-retirement appointment as Director General of Police (DGP) under judicial scrutiny and the Centre refusing to recognize his tenure, Gupta stands at the center of a constitutional clash that may redefine how India governs its most powerful bureaucrats. His story is not just about one officer — it’s about how allegations, influence, and unresolved cases can shape the highest levels of policing in India.
Fraud Case Sparked Early Doubts
Gupta’s first brush with controversy came while he served as Superintendent of Police in Gaya, Bihar (1995–1998). In 1996, his wife, Shikha Gupta, allegedly received a fraudulent MA degree from Magadh University — despite reportedly not appearing for most of the exams.
A Vigilance Bureau probe exposed a suspected “police-varsity nexus”, resulting in FIR No. 64/2000 at the Magadh University police station. Gupta was among 10 accused in a case involving cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.
The case was transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) — a shift that officials said occurred under political pressure. Though the CID eventually dropped Gupta’s name from the chargesheet, pending prosecution sanction from the Jharkhand government, no such sanction was ever granted. As of 2003, the trial remained stalled, with four accused yet to be traced.
Election Commission Interventions and Suspension
Gupta’s name resurfaced during the 2016 Rajya Sabha elections in Jharkhand, when he was serving as Additional Director General (ADG). The Election Commission of India (ECI) ordered his removal and registration of an FIR after recordings surfaced allegedly showing him pressuring an MLA to vote for the ruling coalition.
A departmental inquiry was initiated, and Gupta was suspended on February 14, 2020, for over two years. Though police filed a closure report in January 2024, officials say the criminal case remains pending and departmental proceedings are still incomplete.
The ECI again intervened during the 2019 General Elections, acting on complaints of “biased conduct” filed by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. Gupta, then ADG (Special Branch), was removed from his post and barred from returning to the state until after polling concluded.
Post-Retirement Tenure Fuels Legal Showdown
The most significant chapter in Gupta’s career came in February 2025, when the Hemant Soren-led government appointed him DGP for a fixed two-year term, despite his superannuation date of April 30, 2025. The move was facilitated by the state’s freshly notified “DGP Rules, 2025”, sparking an immediate backlash from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
The MHA declared the extension “invalid” and in violation of the All India Services Rules and the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh judgment, which governs police appointments. It cited Gupta’s ineligibility under the six-month residual service rule, a safeguard against post-retirement appointments.
The Accountant General’s office in Ranchi refused to process Gupta’s salary for May, issuing a “zero pay-slip” and adding administrative weight to the legal challenge. Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition Babulal Marandi filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Jharkhand High Court, as well as a contempt petition in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has now taken cognizance of the case, observing that Gupta’s appointment may have been driven by political considerations, particularly with state elections on the horizon. A hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2025.
Pattern of Protection, Critics Say
Throughout his career, Gupta has continued to receive sensitive and senior postings, often shortly after disciplinary action or allegations. Critics argue this reflects deep-rooted politicization of police leadership and a pattern of administrative leniency enabled by political patronage.
“This is not about just one officer,” said a retired IPS official. “It’s about a system that tolerates — even rewards — questionable conduct when it aligns with political interests.”
Gupta’s defenders argue that no court has convicted him, and that much of the opposition to his appointment is politically motivated. But others point to the pattern of incomplete inquiries, delayed proceedings, and stalled sanctions as symptomatic of a broader failure of accountability.
Court Verdict Could Redefine Cadre Control
With both the Centre and state refusing to budge, the matter has evolved into a larger constitutional conflict over cadre control of All India Services (AIS) officers. The case may set a precedent for how much authority states truly possess in appointing or extending the services of IPS officers, especially against the Centre’s objections.
Legal experts say the court will need to address the limits of state autonomy, the enforceability of Supreme Court-mandated appointment rules, and whether political convenience is being disguised as administrative necessity. The outcome, observers agree, could shape not only Gupta’s future — but also the future of federal governance and police reforms in India.
