New Delhi: The Union government has defended the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, before the Supreme Court, asserting that the legislation neither overrides the apex court’s May 23, 2025 judgment nor declares the ruling erroneous or invalid.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Centre maintained that the new legislation represents a permissible legislative exercise that changes the legal basis on which the Supreme Court’s earlier directions were premised.
The government also defended the continued deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to senior positions in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), arguing that their experience and coordination capabilities are essential to India’s internal security architecture.
The affidavit was filed on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, ahead of a scheduled hearing by a special Supreme Court bench on petitions challenging the legislation.
The Centre has sought dismissal of the petitions, maintaining that Parliament acted within its legislative authority while enacting the new law.
What Did the Supreme Court Rule in May 2025?
The controversy originates from the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of May 23, 2025, concerning career progression and leadership opportunities for officers belonging to the CAPF cadres.
The judgment followed an approximately 16-year legal battle by cadre officers who had raised concerns about promotional stagnation and the appointment of IPS officers to senior command positions through deputation.
The apex court directed the Union government to progressively reduce IPS deputation up to the rank of Inspector General (IG) in five Central Armed Police Forces:
- Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
- Border Security Force (BSF)
- Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)
- Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP)
- Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB)
The ruling was viewed by CAPF cadre officers as an important development in their efforts to secure greater promotional opportunities and access to senior leadership positions.
However, the subsequent enactment of the CAPF Act, 2026, has triggered a fresh legal dispute over the future of IPS deputation in these forces.
What Does the CAPF Act 2026 Say About IPS Deputation?
Parliament passed the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act in April 2026. The legislation was brought into force by the Union government through a notification dated October 8, 2026.
The Act provides a statutory framework for filling senior positions in the CAPFs, including specific deputation requirements for IPS officers.
Under the legislation, 50% of Inspector General posts are to be filled through IPS deputation, while at least 67% of Additional Director General posts are reserved for deputation.
At the Special Director General and Director General levels, appointments are to be made exclusively through deputation.
- Inspector General (IG): 50% of posts reserved for IPS officers on deputation.
- Additional Director General (ADG): Minimum 67% of posts reserved for IPS officers on deputation.
- Special Director General (SDG): All posts to be filled through IPS deputation.
- Director General (DG): All posts to be filled through IPS deputation.
These provisions have become the central issue in the legal challenge, with CAPF cadre officers arguing that the law conflicts with the intent of the Supreme Court’s 2025 directions.
Over 800 CAPF Officers Challenge New Legislation
More than 800 serving CAPF officers have challenged the legislation before the Supreme Court, contending that it was introduced to circumvent the May 2025 judgment.
The petitioners include officers decorated with the Shaurya Chakra, Kirti Chakra and other gallantry awards.
The petition is led by CRPF Assistant Commandant and Shaurya Chakra awardee Bibhor Kumar Singh and other serving officers.
According to the petitioners, the new law is arbitrary and discriminatory because it does not adequately address the long-standing issue of promotional stagnation among CAPF cadre officers.
They argue that the continued appointment of IPS officers to senior posts restricts the career progression of officers recruited directly into the CAPFs, preventing many from reaching higher command positions despite years of operational experience.
Their principal contention is that the Supreme Court had directed the government to progressively reduce IPS deputation, whereas the 2026 legislation establishes statutory quotas for IPS officers at senior levels.
The Bill had also attracted objections from opposition leaders during its passage through Parliament, with concerns raised about its possible impact on the morale and career prospects of CAPF cadre officers.
Centre Says Law Does Not Nullify Supreme Court Judgment
Rejecting the petitioners’ allegations, the Centre told the Supreme Court that the CAPF Act does not seek to invalidate or overrule the May 2025 judgment.
The government maintained that Parliament has the authority to enact legislation changing the underlying legal framework, provided it does not simply declare a judicial ruling invalid.
According to the affidavit, the legislation does not re-enact any provision previously struck down by the Supreme Court.
Instead, the Centre argued, it changes the statutory foundation governing appointments and deputation in the CAPFs.
A Home Ministry officer associated with filing the counter-affidavit also denied that the legislation was intended to nullify the judgment or challenge the authority of the judiciary.
The government informed the court that the Act had become operational on October 8, 2026, following the issuance of the relevant notification.
Why Does the Centre Consider IPS Deputation Necessary?
The Union government strongly defended the role of IPS officers in CAPF leadership, describing their deputation as an important component of the country’s internal security system.
According to the affidavit, recruitment rules governing individual CAPFs have provided for the appointment of IPS officers on deputation since the inception of the respective forces.
The Centre rejected the suggestion that IPS officers lack the professional competence or operational experience required to lead CAPF formations.
It pointed out that IPS officers serve in demanding assignments involving internal security, counter-insurgency operations, Left-Wing Extremism, border districts and intelligence organisations.
Such experience, the government argued, equips them with an understanding of regional security challenges, policing systems and administrative coordination.
The affidavit further maintained that IPS officers play a crucial role in connecting the Union government with state administrations and police organisations.
This coordination is particularly important in areas involving law and order, counter-insurgency, militancy, terrorism and border protection.
The Centre argued that these responsibilities make IPS participation in senior CAPF leadership important for operational coordination and national security.
Government Shares Data on IPS Officers Holding Senior CAPF Posts
The Centre also contested the argument that IPS officers occupy most senior positions in the CAPFs.
In its affidavit, the government provided figures relating to sanctioned posts at the Deputy Inspector General and Inspector General levels.
According to the data presented:
- Deputy Inspector General (DIG): Out of 607 sanctioned posts, 47 are held by or allocated to IPS officers.
- Inspector General (IG): Out of 140 sanctioned posts, 64 are held by or allocated to IPS officers.
The Centre stated that 47 of the 607 sanctioned DIG posts were held by IPS officers, while 64 of the 140 sanctioned IG posts were allocated to them.
The figures were cited to counter allegations regarding the extent of IPS representation in senior CAPF positions.
The government also rejected the claim that the deputation quotas had been determined without proper examination or guiding principles.
It maintained that the provisions were based on considered administrative and operational requirements.
Cadre Review of Five CAPFs Underway
Responding to concerns about promotion opportunities, the Centre informed the Supreme Court that the cadre review process for the five CAPFs was underway.
The government said the exercise was being conducted within the framework established by the CAPF Act, 2026.
It also submitted details of the dates on which cadre review proposals for the CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB had been forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training.
Cadre reviews are significant because they involve examining organisational structures, sanctioned posts and career progression opportunities within government services.
For CAPF cadre officers, the exercise is particularly important in the context of their long-standing demand for improved promotional avenues and greater representation in senior leadership.
However, the petitioners’ broader challenge concerns whether the new statutory deputation framework is compatible with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions.
Retired CAPF Officers Plan Protest at Jantar Mantar
The dispute has also generated opposition outside the courtroom.
Retired CAPF officers and their families have announced plans to hold a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi in November 2026 against the new legislation.
The proposed demonstration reflects continuing concerns among sections of the CAPF community regarding promotional stagnation, cadre representation and the impact of IPS deputation on career progression.
The controversy has therefore developed into both a legal dispute over the powers of Parliament and the implementation of judicial directions, and an administrative debate over leadership structures within India’s central security forces.
Supreme Court Hearing to Examine Competing Claims
The Supreme Court is now expected to examine the competing arguments presented by the Centre and the CAPF cadre officers.
The petitioners contend that the legislation undermines the relief granted through the May 2025 judgment and perpetuates promotional stagnation.
The Union government, on the other hand, maintains that the Act is a legitimate legislative measure that establishes a revised legal framework while preserving the operational benefits of IPS deputation.
The case raises significant questions about the relationship between judicial directions and subsequent legislation, as well as the balance between career progression for CAPF cadre officers and the government’s stated requirements for integrated internal security leadership.
The outcome could have important implications for the future command structure, cadre management and promotion opportunities in the country’s five Central Armed Police Forces.
