NEW DELHI, SEP 2 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Centre over its alleged inability to resolve the tussle between IPS officers and in-house officers of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) over deputation and seniority.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati whether there were no competent officers in the CAPFs to hold leadership positions.
“Do you think that there are no competent officers in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) to hold leadership positions,” Justice Bhuyan asked.
He said officers who had served 25-30 years in the CRPF, ITBP and BSF were still denied leadership positions. “Why are you treating them like this,” he asked, noting that they also defend the borders and make sacrifices.
Bhati defended the government’s position, saying the decision regarding the CAPFs was a policy matter and not a “this versus that issue”.
The court was hearing a plea by 34 CAPF officers challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026. The officers contend that the law violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The plea argued that Parliament’s new law effectively negated Supreme Court judgments without removing their legal basis. It said that while Parliament can retrospectively amend legislation, it cannot simply nullify judicial pronouncements without curing defects or altering the underlying legal basis.
On August 4, the bench had tagged the plea with pending matters. Parliament passed the CAPF (General Administration) Bill on April 2 after the Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s review plea in October 2025 against its May 2025 judgment.
In that judgment, the top court directed the Centre to progressively reduce IPS deputation in CAPFs up to the senior administrative grade (SAG) and conduct a cadre review within six months.
The May 23, 2025 order covered the ITBP, BSF, CRPF, CISF and SSB. The court directed the Centre to review service and recruitment rules, with the Department of Personnel and Training to take an appropriate decision within three months of receiving the Ministry of Home Affairs’ action taken report.
The directions followed pleas seeking non-functional financial upgrade, cadre review, restructuring and changes in recruitment rules to eliminate IPS deputation.
The court had said deputation posts up to SAG should be progressively reduced, within an outer limit of two years, balancing career mobility for CAPF cadre officers with operational and functional requirements.
It said this would improve participation of cadre officers in decision-making and address their long-standing grievances. The court noted the Centre’s position that IPS officers in each CAPF were vital to maintaining the unique character of the forces, but said the grievances of CAPF officers could not be ignored.
The court observed that CAPF personnel perform demanding duties safeguarding the country’s borders, security and sovereignty. It said lateral entry into higher grades prevented timely promotions for cadre officers, causing stagnation that could adversely affect morale.
The bench had therefore emphasised that such stagnation must be considered while reviewing the government’s policy on IPS deputation.
The court had also made clear that individual IPS officers or their association could not determine the deputation quota or duration, as these were governed by the Centre’s policy and service or recruitment rules. At the same time, it stressed that the dedicated service of CAPF cadre officers working under difficult conditions to maintain internal security and protect the nation’s borders deserved due consideration.
The court said the twin objectives were to ensure service mobility and remove stagnation among cadre officers while meeting operational needs. The latest challenge contends that the 2026 legislation seeks to override these judicial directions. The issue remains a longstanding CAPF officers’ grievance.
Thursday, September 3, 2026