In India’s policing system, leadership is not just about rank. It is about understanding the system from the inside. The Union Government has now made that principle official.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has made it mandatory for Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to complete at least two years of Central deputation at the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) or Deputy Inspector General (DIG) to be eligible for empanelment as Inspector General (IG) at the Centre. The rule applies to officers of the 2011 batch onwards.
The move has triggered debate. But many senior retired officers believe it is a necessary reform.
WHY THE CHANGE NOW?
The Centre is facing a shortage of IPS officers at middle and senior levels. As per government data, more than 100 SP-level posts and 69 DIG-level posts are vacant in central organisations. Agencies like the Central Reserve Police Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force, Sashastra Seema Bal and National Security Guard depend heavily on IPS officers for leadership roles.
For years, central deputation was seen as important but not compulsory. Now, it is a formal condition for promotion to IG-level posts at the Centre.
“HELICOPTER DGS” AND THE NEED FOR GROUND EXPERIENCE
Former DGP and retired IPS officer Prakash Singh strongly supports the reform.
According to him, central armed police forces have their own culture, structure and operational realities. He said officers who move directly from a state cadre to head a central force as Director General (DG), without prior central exposure, are sometimes informally called “helicopter DGs”.
“It is only fair that officers leading CAPFs have prior hands-on experience within the system,” he said.
He added, “When someone comes directly from a state and becomes DG without serving in the force earlier, it creates gaps in institutional understanding. It may also affect morale.”
For him, serving at the SP or DIG level in central organisations is essential. It allows officers to understand command structures, field conditions and coordination challenges.
However, he made an important distinction. Agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and the National Investigation Agency are different.
“In investigative agencies, officers often gain similar experience in state policing. The transition is more seamless,” he noted.
AN “UNWRITTEN RULE” BECOMES POLICY
Another retired IPS officer from West Bengal, noted author and poet Mr. Mrityunjaya Kumar, described central deputation as an “unwritten rule” in the past.
“Earlier, if you wanted to grow in your career, you knew that central deputation was important,” he said.
But in recent years, relations between some states and the Centre have become tense. There have been instances where officers who applied for central deputation were not relieved by their state governments.
This, he believes, is a serious concern.
“If an officer applies for central deputation at SP level but is not released by the state, should that officer later be penalised for lacking central experience?” he asked.
He added, “In such cases, the individual officer suffers despite showing willingness to serve at the Centre.”
For him, the real issue is not whether central experience is necessary. It clearly is. The issue is fairness.
THE FEDERAL BALANCE QUESTION
The new rule applies prospectively to IPS officers of the 2011 batch onwards. The MHA has written to all Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police, asking them to inform officers about the revised guidelines.
The push comes amid repeated reminders from the Union Home Secretary to states to send more officers on central deputation. At present, 40% of senior duty posts in each IPS cadre are marked as Central Deputation Reserve. Yet many states reportedly do not send enough nominations.
At the same time, the debate also touches upon Centre–State relations. Under existing rules, both the officer’s consent and the state government’s clearance are required for central deputation.
Mr. Mrityunjya Kumar believes the solution lies in a transparent system.
“There must be a time-bound and fair mechanism between the Centre and states. Officers should not be caught in political crossfire,” he said.
A REFORM WITH CAUTION
The reform aims to strengthen institutional leadership. It ensures that those who lead central armed forces have first-hand experience of their systems.
Prakash Singh sees it as a long-overdue correction. Mr. Mrityunjya Kumar sees it as necessary, but warns against unfair implementation.
Both agree on one point: central experience matters.
The success of this policy will depend not just on the rule itself, but on cooperation between the Union and the states. If implemented fairly, it can build stronger leadership at the top. If politicised, it could slow careers and create resentment.
For now, the message from Delhi is clear — before leading the Centre’s forces, officers must first serve within them.
