New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, sought an explanation from Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, an IAS officer of 1989 batch from Sikkim cadre, on the implementation of its May 2025 judgment directing the Centre to progressively reduce the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to senior positions in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Sharachchandra Chandurkar was hearing contempt petitions filed by CAPF cadre officers challenging the Centre’s implementation of the court’s earlier directions and the subsequent Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.
During the hearing, Justice Bhuyan questioned the Centre over the continued tussle between IPS officers on deputation and in-house CAPF officers, asking whether there were no competent officers within the forces to occupy managerial and senior leadership positions.
The court also orally observed that CAPF cadre officers were being “completely stifled” and referred to the existence of a “strong lobby” in the matter.
Supreme Court Questions Centre Over CAPF Leadership
Justice Bhuyan questioned Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, on the government’s position regarding senior leadership appointments in the CAPFs.
“Do you think that there are no competent officers in the CAPF to hold managerial positions?” the judge asked, according to the proceedings.
Justice Bhuyan emphasised that there were officers who had served for 25-30 years in forces such as the CRPF, ITBP and BSF, yet had not been given opportunities to occupy higher leadership positions.
Read Also: CAPF Veterans Sound Alarm Over New Act, Announce Hunger Strike at Jantar Mantar
The judge questioned why such officers were being treated differently despite their long service and contribution to national security.
“They are also defending our borders. They are also fighting for us… Supreme sacrifices they have made,” Justice Bhuyan observed.
When ASG Aishwarya Bhati sought to defend the government’s position by submitting that the policy decision was not a matter of “this versus that”, Justice Bhuyan responded that the situation had effectively been created by the government.
Justice Bhuyan Says CAPF Cadre Officers Are ‘Completely Stifled’
During the hearing, Justice Bhuyan also made a strong oral observation regarding the position of in-house CAPF officers.
“I am sorry to use this word, but there is a strong lobby there,” the judge said, adding that the court did not want to express any view on the issue at that stage.
He further referred to the cadres of the CRPF, ITBP and BSF, observing that the officers were “completely stifled”.
The observations came against the backdrop of a long-running dispute over the role of IPS officers on deputation and the career progression of officers belonging to the respective CAPF cadres.
The petitioners have argued that continued deputation of IPS officers to senior positions affects the promotional avenues of officers who have spent their entire careers within the CAPFs.
CAPF Officers Challenge 2026 General Administration Act
The Supreme Court had on August 4, 2026, issued notice to the Centre on a petition challenging the validity of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.
The legislation allows the continued deputation of IPS officers at senior levels in the CAPFs.
The challenge has been filed by a group of around 3,000 CAPF officers, who have argued that the legislation makes it difficult for officers belonging to the CAPF cadres to rise to leadership and other higher positions.
Around 1,500 of the petitioners are from the CRPF, with many approaching the Supreme Court individually. The group also includes gallantry award winners and women officers.
The petitioners have sought the court’s intervention to strike down provisions of the legislation, contending that the 2026 law effectively reverses the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment.
What Did the Supreme Court Rule in May 2025?
The dispute stems from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Prakash versus Union of India, delivered on May 23, 2025.
In its judgment, the court held that Group A executive cadre officers of the CAPFs constitute organised Group A services for all purposes.
The court also ruled that all Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) posts in the CAPFs should be filled from among eligible executive cadre officers of the respective forces, rather than being filled exclusively through deputation.
The Supreme Court further directed the Centre to progressively reduce IPS deputation in the CAPFs up to the level of Inspector General (IG) over a period of two years.
It also directed the government to undertake a time-bound cadre review within six months.
The CAPF officers have now challenged provisions of the 2026 legislation, seeking to have Sections 3 and 4 of the CAPF Act declared ultra vires the Constitution of India.
What Do Sections 3 and 4 of the CAPF Act Provide?
The petitioners have specifically questioned Sections 3 and 4 of the legislation.
Section 3 deals with the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service. It contains a non obstante clause that overrides any judgment, decree or order of any court and specifies the percentage of posts reserved for IPS officers on deputation.
Section 4 empowers the Union government to amend the First and Second Schedules of the Act through a notification whenever it considers such action necessary or expedient in the public interest.
The petitioners have contended that these provisions are unconstitutional because they effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment through legislation.
Centre Enacts CAPF Act Despite Opposition
The Centre subsequently enacted the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, despite opposition and criticism from CAPF cadre officers.
The petitioners have argued that the legislation formalises the deputation of IPS officers beginning at senior administrative grades, including positions at the Inspector General level.
They have sought nullification of the provisions notified in April, claiming that the legislation undermines the directions issued by the Supreme Court in May 2025.
The Centre had also filed a review petition against the 2025 judgment, but the Supreme Court dismissed the review in October 2025.
Supreme Court Seeks Status Report on 2025 Directions
The Supreme Court had last month sought a status report from the Union Home Ministry and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on the steps taken to implement its directions in the May 2025 judgment.
Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan subsequently filed an affidavit before the court stating that the Centre was “leaving no stone unturned” to complete the cadre-review exercise directed by the Supreme Court.
According to the affidavit, proposals relating to cadre reviews of all CAPFs had been examined by the Ministry of Home Affairs, concurred with by the Integrated Finance Division (IFD) and forwarded to DoPT for further consideration after receiving the approval of the Home Minister.
Centre Says Cadre Reviews Underway Across CAPFs
The government has maintained that it has taken steps to implement the Supreme Court’s directions and initiated the cadre-review process across the CAPFs.
The Home Secretary informed the court that the cadre-review proposals of all CAPFs had moved through the required administrative process.
However, the continued deputation of IPS officers remains a central issue in the contempt proceedings and the separate challenge to the 2026 legislation.
The government has sought to defend its policy as an administrative and organisational decision rather than a contest between IPS officers and CAPF cadre officers.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations indicate that the court is closely examining whether the existing arrangements provide adequate career progression and leadership opportunities to officers who have spent decades serving within the CAPFs.
46 IPS Officers Deputed to CAPFs Since May 2025
The affidavit filed by Home Secretary Govind Mohan also disclosed that 46 IPS officers had been deputed to the CAPFs since the Supreme Court’s May 2025 directions, up to the level of Inspector General.
The figure has become significant in the ongoing legal dispute because the Supreme Court had directed the Centre to progressively reduce IPS deputation up to the IG level over two years.
The petitioners have questioned whether the continued appointments are consistent with the spirit and implementation of the 2025 judgment.
The government, meanwhile, has maintained that it is taking steps to implement the court’s directions through cadre reviews and other administrative measures.
Long-Running IPS-CAPF Cadre Dispute
The case reflects a long-standing issue concerning the allocation of senior leadership positions between IPS officers on deputation and officers belonging to the organised cadres of the CAPFs.
For officers of forces such as the CRPF, BSF and ITBP, the dispute concerns not only deputation but also their promotional avenues after decades of service.
The petitioners include officers with long service records, gallantry award recipients and women personnel, and they contend that the 2026 legislation could restrict the progression of CAPF cadre officers into senior command and administrative positions.
The Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment had sought to strengthen the position of the organised executive cadres while providing for a gradual reduction in IPS deputation.
The latest hearing has now brought renewed focus on the implementation of those directions and the compatibility of the 2026 legislation with the court’s earlier ruling.
The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Centre through the Union Home Secretary as the legal challenge and contempt proceedings continue.
Also read: 13,000 CAPF Officers Await Cadre Review; Proposals Reach Finance Ministry
