New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government on a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, a law that restored fixed quotas for IPS officers on deputation to senior posts in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).
The petitioners contend that the legislation amounts to an impermissible legislative override of the Supreme Court’s landmark May 23, 2025 judgment, which had directed a gradual reduction of IPS deputation in CAPFs while recognising these forces as part of the Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) for all cadre-related matters.
Bench Issues Notice to Centre
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi considered two separate petitions challenging the legislation.
One petition has been filed by 34 CAPF officers, while another has been jointly filed by 890 officers, making it one of the largest legal challenges mounted by serving CAPF personnel against a service-related law.
The Bench issued notice to the Union Government, seeking its response to the constitutional challenge.
Read also: 3,000 CAPF Officers Move Supreme Court Against New CAPF Act, Challenge IPS Quota in Top Posts
Petitioners Challenge Constitutional Validity
The petitioners have sought a declaration that the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026is unconstitutional.
According to the petitions, the Act violates:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality)
- Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment)
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
- The constitutional doctrine of separation of powers
The officers argue that Parliament cannot simply negate the effect of a judicial pronouncement through legislation without addressing the legal reasoning that formed the basis of the court’s decision.
Background: Supreme Court’s 2025 Judgment
The dispute traces its origins to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Prakash v. Union of India, delivered on May 23, 2025, by a Bench of Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
In that landmark ruling, the Court held that:
- CAPFs should be treated as part of Organised Group-A Services (OGAS) not only for Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) but also for all cadre-related matters, including cadre review.
- Posts earmarked for IPS deputation up to the level of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) should be progressively reduced over a period of about two years.
The judgment was viewed as a significant victory for cadre officers in CAPFs, who had long argued that excessive deputation of IPS officers restricted their promotional opportunities.
What the CAPF Act, 2026 Provides
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Parliament enacted the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.
The most contentious provision is Section 3, which begins with a “notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court” clause, giving the legislation overriding effect over judicial decisions.
The law authorises the Central Government to frame rules governing recruitment, promotion, deputation and service conditions of CAPF officers.
It also prescribes mandatory IPS deputation quotas for senior ranks:
- 50% of all Inspector General (IG) posts to be filled by IPS officers on deputation.
- At least 67% of Additional Director General (ADG) posts reserved for IPS officers on deputation.
- 100% of Special Director General (SDG) and Director General (DG) posts to be occupied by IPS officers on deputation.
These provisions effectively restore the deputation framework that the 2025 Supreme Court judgment had sought to phase out.
Petitioners Allege ‘Legislative Override’
The petitions argue that the 2026 legislation directly nullifies not only the Sanjay Prakash judgment but also the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Harananda v. Union of India (2019) without curing the legal defects identified by the Court.
According to the petitioners, while Parliament possesses the power to amend laws retrospectively, it cannot simply invalidate judicial decisions through legislative fiat unless it removes the legal basis on which those judgments were founded.
They contend that the Act represents an unconstitutional attempt to override binding judicial pronouncements, thereby violating the principle of separation of powers.
Challenge to IPS Deputation Quotas
The officers have also challenged the fixed deputation percentages prescribed under the Act.
According to the petitions, these quotas:
- Create an arbitrary classification without intelligible differentia.
- Lack a rational nexus with the objectives sought to be achieved.
- Significantly restrict promotional avenues for trained CAPF cadre officers.
- Institutionalise discrimination against officers who have spent their careers within the CAPFs.
The petitioners describe the legislation as a colourable exercise of legislative power, enacted solely to reverse the effect of judicial rulings.
Reliance on Earlier Supreme Court Judgments
To support their arguments, the petitioners have relied upon several constitutional precedents, including:
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2022) on legislative override of judicial decisions.
- Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala (1996) dealing with the limits of retrospective legislation.
- Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), which distinguished between “law and order,” “public order,” and “security of the State.”
Using the principles laid down in the Ram Manohar Lohia judgment, the petitioners argue that CAPFs primarily perform national security, border guarding and internal security functions, making them fundamentally different from state police organisations. Consequently, they contend that the command structure and deputation policies applicable to State police forces should not automatically govern CAPFs.
Reliefs Sought
Besides seeking to strike down the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026, the petitioners have requested the Supreme Court to direct the Union Government to implement the Court’s May 23, 2025judgment in letter and spirit.
The officers have sought directions for:
- Compliance with the 2025 Supreme Court judgment.
- Completion of cadre review for CAPFs.
- Amendment of recruitment rules.
- Progressive reduction of IPS deputation in senior CAPF ranks.
The matter is now set to proceed after the Union Government files its response before the Supreme Court.
Read also: Supreme Court Questions Arunachal Govt’s Cooperation in CBI Probe, Summons Top Bureaucrats
